Deprivation and Privation

Bowlby’s theory of attachment led him to believe that there was a critical period for attachment formation. If a separation occurs between mother and infant within the first few years of the child’s life, the bond would be irreversibly broken, leading to severe emotional consequences for the infant in later life. He referred to this disruption of the bond with the mother as maternal deprivation.

Bowlby claimed that maternal deprivation had the following consequences on the child:

• Aggressiveness
• Depression
• Delinquency
• Dependency anxiety (‘clinging’)
• Dwarfism (retarded growth)
• Affectionless psychopathy (showing no feelings for others)
• Intellectual retardation
• Social maladjustment

Studies of the effects of maternal deprivation

There are many studies of the effects of deprivation and the implications for maternal deprivation theory.

Early studies of institutionalised children. Goldfarb (1943) showed that institutionalised children performed poorly on IQ tests compared with those that had been fostered. Spitz (1945) provided evidence that children raised in poor South American orphanages suffered from depression and apathy, while Spitz & Wolf (1946) claimed to show that recovery from early deprivation was rare. Finally, Bowlby (1944) claimed that there was an association between early deprivation and delinquency.

However, these early studies have been extensively criticised in terms of their methods and sometimes lack of basic controls. For example, Bowlby’s study of 44 thieves had a basic flaw in the design in that Bowlby found a sample of ‘thieves’ and then looked back for evidence of separation (this is itself a problem since it is relying on retrospective data). Bowlby should have compared a group of youngsters who had suffered MD with a matched group who had not. If he had found a difference in outcomes between the groups he would have had much more grounds for claiming that the delinquent behaviour was the due to early separation.

However, even if the results of these early studies are valid, the data is essentially correlational. Bowlby might claim that maternal deprivation was associated with a variety of adverse effects but he could not prove that it was the cause of these effects. There are a variety of circumstances associated with being raised in an orphanage, such as the lack of stimulation and social interaction, and these could be the crucial factors as far as development is concerned.

However, animal studies by Harlow and his co-workers appeared to lend weight to Bowlby’s theories. Harlow (1959) and Harlow & Zimmerman (1959) demonstrated severe behavioural abnormalities in rhesus monkeys deprived of contact with their mothers, including behaviour when they themselves became parents very similar to that shown by parents who abuse or neglect their children. However, the neglect suffered by Harlow’s monkeys was much more severe than just about any imaginable deprivation of children (except in rare cases of extreme privation discussed below). Also evidence from animal studies must be interpreted very carefully when applied to humans.

There is also evidence from studies of short-term separation. Robertson & Robertson showed how children separated from their mothers would follow a characteristic pattern of protest, despair and detachment (the distress syndrome). They argued that this was evidence of bond disruption. However, they admit that it is possible that the distress was the result of other factors, for example the stress of a novel environment. In further studies the Robertsons showed that children would actually adapt well to separations provided that they were made accustomed to their new surroundings and allowed to form an attachment to their new carer.

Evidence against Bowlby’s theory

During the last 40 years, psychologists have developed a much better understanding of the effects of deprivation. The early studies of deprivation failed to provide convincing evidence in support of Bowlby and there are further studies that undermine the maternal deprivation hypothesis. These include:

• Schaffer & Emerson (1964): This study challenges a central assumption of Bowlby’s theory: the idea of monotropy. Schaffer & Emerson concluded that babies could form several attachments simultaneously and that even if there was a main attachment it was not always to the mother. Given the right responsiveness to the baby, it can attach to any carer.
• Hodges & Tizard (1989): This study is discussed in detail in the section on privation. But the significant finding for the MD hypothesis is that the researchers showed that children can form attachments after 3 years of age despite Bowlby’s claim that this would be outside the critical period.
• Skeels (1949): This study compared the intelligence of girls who remained in an orphanage with a group who were transferred at age 3 to a school for the mentally retarded. Here they were looked after by individual teenage girls who gave them much more attention and opportunity for play than they had received in the orphanage. Initial intelligence for both groups was similar with an average of 64 IQ points. At age 4, the group who remained in the orphanage had actually suffered a decline in measured intelligence to 60, while for those in the special school it had risen to an average of 92. Skeels concluded that it was lack of stimulation that had caused the poorer intellectual development, not maternal deprivation.

Privation versus deprivation

Deprivation really means the loss of or separation from an attachment figure (i.e. mother). While Bowlby saw that separation experiences in infancy and early childhood were the cause of affectionless psychopathy and delinquency, Rutter has argued that these are more likely to result from privation – failure to establish an attachment.

Rutter suggests that rather than separation itself being responsible for the behaviour, it is much more important to look at the cause of the separation. Rutter (1970) looked at delinquency in young teenage boys from both London and the Isle of Wight. He could find little evidence for a link between early separation and delinquency. What mattered was the type of relationship the child had with the parent before separation. Where these were poor (for example as a result of conflict in the family) the child was more likely to show later delinquent behaviour. Rutter argued that family discord (e.g. arguing, lack of affection, stress) rather than separation was a contributory factor in latter antisocial behaviour, possibly because it prevented the formation of attachments (privation). It is important to realise that Rutter isn’t saying that these factors alone are the cause of delinquency, but that the underlying stress in the home can lead to increased vulnerability in children, whether or not the family remains together.

Extension Reading: Short term effects of separation

The effects of privation

It is now recognised that studies of institutionally reared children actually demonstrate the effects of privation (failing to form a bond) rather than deprivation (separation). Privation is the failure to establish a bond with any individual and, given the importance placed on this first relationship by most researchers, this would be expected to have damaging consequences for the child in later life.

According to Rutter (1981), privation can lead to an initial phase of clinging, dependent behaviour followed by attention-seeking and indiscriminate friendliness. In the long-term, it will result in a type of personality that shows an inability to form relationships, a lack of guilt and antisocial behaviour such as delinquency.

One issue that has been extensively researched is the extent to which the effects of deprivation/privation are reversible. Bowlby thought that they were not. Does the research evidence support this view?

Activity

Research into extreme privation: reversibility of early experience

Case studies of children who have suffered extreme neglect have provided important information about the effects of privation and, in particular, on the extent to which the effects are reversible.

A potentially very important case was that of Genie (Curtis, 1997). Locked in a room by herself from before the age of 2 until she was 13, Genie suffered the most extreme form of neglect imaginable. She had practically no social contact with other people and had never even eaten solid food. When found could not walk properly, rarely made a sound and was not toilet trained. Although her motor skills improved, Genie never really developed language (an attempt was even made to teach her sign language). Genie showed some emotional responses and there was evidence that she formed attachments to her carers, but she was never able to learn to look after herself and remains to this day in an institution.

On the face of it, the conclusion of the case study into Genie is that only a limited recovery from privation is possible, especially if its duration is prolonged. For example Curtis suggests that Genie’s case supports the idea of a critical period for language development (Lenneberg, 1967) in that it is impossible to acquire grammar if the child is not exposed to language before puberty.

However there are two important qualifications that need to be borne in mind before concluding anything from this case. The first is that it proved impossible to establish with any certainty whether Genie suffered from learning difficulties before she was isolated.

Secondly, the case study lacked scientific rigour. Assessments of Genie’s progress were not made in a systematic way and few results were published. In fact, as a result of the withdrawal of funding and other legal complications, the research project was abandoned after only a few years.

These considerations do not apply to the studies of the Czech twins reported by Jarmila Koluchová. This case demonstrates in a very graphic way that children who have suffered extreme privation can make up the deficit later. The case cited by Skuse (1984) of Mary and Louise is another example.

Studies of orphanage-raised children

Another test of the reversibility of the effects of privation is provided by studies of children brought up in orphanages. Wayne Dennis (1973) studied a group of children raised in a very poor orphanage in Lebanon. The children entered the orphanage shortly after birth and were reared in conditions of great privation with little human contact and a severe lack of stimulation, the harmful effects of which were readily apparent after even one year.

Development was only half the normal rate when tested at 12 months. By age 16, girls who had remained institutionalised progressed very badly. They could not read or write nor perform even basic arithmetic. In contrast the progress of children who were adopted was much more positive, even those adopted at the relatively late age of four years were only slightly retarded in terms of IQ. Interestingly the boys in the sample were transferred at age six to a much better staffed and equipped orphanage and they did much better than the girls. Although they still scored below normal on IQ tests when tested at 10-14 years they had progressed sufficiently to at least function in society.

In further studies of institutionalised children by Barbara Tizard and her colleagues, the basic findings of Dennis were confirmed. Children’s development will suffer if they experience the kind of privation found in understaffed orphanages where they are given little opportunity to form attachments. However adoption, especially if this is at a sufficiently early age, can reverse some of the effects.

In her 1975 study, Tizard showed that the then widely practiced policy of discouraging relationships in insitutions, coupled with high staff turnover, had prevented children in the institutionalised group from forming strong attachments. Following up the sample of children at eight years, Tizard & Hodges (1978) found that the majority of early adopted children had formed close relationships, despite the lack of early attachments when they were in care. Most of the original group of 26 had now been adopted. On some, though not all measures, it was found that this late adoption group still had behaviour problems, particularly when assessed by teachers. This pattern was confirmed at age 16 (Hodges & Tizard, 1989).

Tizard’s overall conclusion was that experiencing privation in early years was a risk factor in developing later behaviour problems, but that early adoption into a good home could go some considerable way to mitigate these risks.

Critical Issue: Day care

It is estimated that in the UK more than 600,000 mothers of preschool children are in paid employment. According to a US census reported in 1994, over 60% of mothers who had children under 2 were in employment. Although some of these children will be cared for by fathers or other close relatives, the majority will be cared for in some form of nursery or crèche or be placed with a childminder.

Activity

Although day care is widespread there is much controversy over its use. Psychologists disagree sharply about the developmental effects of day care on young children. Some agree with Bowlby’s prediction that long to medium term separation from the mother could have far-reaching consequences. He suggests that similar effects would occur if mothers of pre-school children went back to work and used some form of day care for their children. Others claim that, provided day care is high quality day care has no adverse effects on intellectual development and does not disrupt the child’s attachments. Some psychologists believe that it might even make a positive contribution to the child’s development.

Quality of day care

The quality of day care varies enormously, but there is general agreement on what counts as quality. According to Clarke-Stewart (1984), particularly important are:

• A planned daily programme of activities that are appropriate for the developmental level of the child and are designed to promote cognitive and social development.
• Caregivers with specialised training in child care (particularly in health and safety)
• Adequate and nutritious meals
• A health record for each child
• Opportunities for parents to observe the setting and to discuss the child’s needs before and during time at the centre.
• Small group size and low student-to-staff ratios (e.g. for 1-2 year-olds, 6-12 per group)

Effects of day care on children’s cognitive development

Common sense suggests that poor quality day care will not be a help to children. Indeed, in extreme cases the children may even suffer privation. Not all child care is of high-quality. In one of the most extensive studies of childminding in the UK, Mayall & Petrie (1977) found that only 1 in 4 were of good quality, a half were less than satisfactory and 1 in 5 were of poor quality. A third of childminders give up childminding each year. One third of the sample refused to take children from ethnic minorities. The survey was conducted in a disadvantaged area and so may not be typical of childminders nationally, but it should be borne in mind that poorer families will tend to use childminders rather than nurseries and these will often be untrained and unregistered.

Head Start and compensatory nursery education

Although there is some variation in standards, privation is unlikely in nurseries and so this type of child care is unlikely to have negative consequences for the intellectual development of the child. In fact it might even benefit those from poorer backgrounds, and this is precisely what studies of enrichment programmes such as Project Head Start have suggested. This was one of a number of schemes was set up during the 1960s with the aim of breaking into the cycle of deprivation typical of inner city USA. Large numbers of three to four year old children were involved. The intervention included attendance at a day care centre as well as work in the children’s own homes. Initial results were encouraging and showed that average IQ was raised by 10 points. However there was no control group because, understandably, no parents wanted their children to be excluded from the programme. Also problematic was the finding that the gains in IQ tended to fade away during the first years of elementary school. However later studies, including similar programmes involving nursery schooling, suggested that some gains can persist even into adolescence, with lower rates of delinquency and teenage pregnancy and better academic performance (e.g. Haskins, 1989).

These studies seem to suggest that good quality nursery provision can make a difference for disadvantaged children with poor and/or ill-educated parents. The gains are by no means guaranteed, however, and it is necessary to maintain programmes for longer than the initial ‘head start’ to consolidate the childrens’ progress.

Day care and socially advantaged children

Until recently the conclusion about the effects of day care on cognitive development was that it had little impact on children from advantaged families but was beneficial to disadvantaged children. However newer research suggests that this conclusion may have to be qualified. The study by Andersson (1992) conducted in Sweden has apparently demonstrated that even middle-class children can benefit, especially if day care begins at a very young age.

This longitudinal study involved a sample of more than 100 children from a variety of backgrounds, including single parent families. The children were selected at age 3 to 4 and the type of child care recorded, together with the age at which child care was begun. The children were assessed at ages 8 and 13. They were given a range of tests of their cognitive (i.e. IQ tests, school performance) and social development (mainly teacher ratings).

The findings of the study showed an association between age of entry into child care and cognitive development. Those children who had spent longest in day care had better school performance than those who had only a short time in day care or those who were cared for at home.

There was an important confounding variable in this study that must be kept in mind when interpreting the findings. Those children who started day care earliest tended to come from the wealthiest families. Thus the reason they did better could have been because they came from the most advantaged families.

It is also important to note that the study was conducted in Sweden, a country with a very highly developed system of social welfare and where the quality of day care is extremely high. The results may therefore not be typical. Other studies, particularly in the US have shown different results.

Timing of day care

A cautionary note to conclusions about the potential benefits of day care is provided in study by Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and her colleges. In a longitudinal study involving more than 1000 children, assessments were made at age 3-4 and also age 5-6 of children who had been reared at home and others who had experienced varying types and amounts of day care. The results were that in middle-class white children (but not black children), those experiencing day care from before the age of one year had the lowest scores in vocabulary tests, but no negative effects were found for those starting day care after one year of age. However, among the five- & four-year-olds, the pattern of results was different. Children from the poorest families seemed to have benefited from day care starting before one year of age, but middle class children had lower scores (Baydar & Brooks-Gunn, 1991 & Caughy et al, 1994). Such findings appear to imply that day care that begins before one year can be harmful as far as cognitive development is concerned.

Conclusions

It may be that there is just not enough evidence to provide firm conclusions. However, Bee (1997) suggests the sometimes contradictory findings of research studies could be reconciled in the following way:

“The crucial issue is the discrepancy between the level of stimulation that the child would receive at home and the quality of day care. When the day care setting for the child provides more enrichment than the child would normally receive at home, we see some beneficial cognitive effects. When day care is less stimulating than the child’s home care would have been, it has negative effects.”

Effects of day care on childrens’ social development

Research on the effects of day care on social and personality development provides an equally conflicting picture as in the case of cognitive development. One area that has been extensively investigated is the effect of day care on attachment behaviour. This is a controversial issue since the time when Bowlby first suggested his maternal deprivation hypothesis. Many studies do not support the implication from Bowlby’s theory that working mothers who use day care from an early age run the risk of subjecting their infants to maternal deprivation. Provided day care is of sufficient quality, it should not necessarily weaken the child’s attachment to the mother.

One exception to this finding is a series of studies by Belsky & Rovine (1988, etc.). They claim to have evidence that insecure attachments were more likely to develop if the child had been receiving care of at least 20 hours per week for 4 months or more before its first birthday.

However, Belsky & Rovine used Ainsworth’s strange situation as a measure of attachment. Because children in day care are used to separations, subjecting them to the Strange Situation test may not provide an accurate measure of attachment behaviour among this group of children.

Another suggestion that is often made is that day care can have positive effects on the sociability of the child, particularly in respect of relationships with peers. Using a variety of measures, including aggressiveness, closeness and frequency of interaction, Shea (1981) showed that children aged 3-4 became more sociable during their time in nursery school. This improvement was greater in those spending 5 days per week than those spending just 2 days. Clarke-Stewart et al (1994) showed that among 2-3 year old children in day care, peer relationships were more advanced compared with those cared for at home. However not all children benefit form day care. Those with shy and difficult temperaments may find the experience stressful with consequent negative effects on their social development.

References

Back to AS Psychology FrontPage

Top