Knowt
Disruption of Attachment
Attachment can be disrupted by separation or deprivation:
Separation is when a child is away from a caregiver they’re attached to (such as their mother). The term’s used when it’s a relatively short time, just hours or days- not a longer or permanent separation
Deprivation describes the loss of something that is wanted or needed. So, ‘maternal deprivation’ is the loss of the mother (or another attachment figure). A more long-term or even permanent loss is implied
John Bowlby (1953) studied longer-term maternal deprivation:
John Bowlby argued that long-term deprivation from an attachment figure could be harmful. He produced his maternal deprivation hypothesis:
Deprivation from the main carer during the critical period (the first 3 years) will have harmful effects on a child’s emotional, social, intellectual and even physical development
Long-term effects of deprivation may include separation anxiety (the fear of another separation from the carer). This may lead to problem behaviour, e.g., being clingy and avoiding school. Future relationships may be affected by this emotional insecurity. Bowlby’s research showed evidence for this
Bowlby (1944)- The 44 juvenile thieves:
Method:
Case studies were completed on the backgrounds of 44 adolescents who had been referred to the clinic where Bowlby worked because they’d been stealing. There was a control group of 44 ‘emotionally disturbed’ adolescents who didn’t steal
Results:
17 of the thieves had experienced frequent separations from their mothers before the age of two, compared with 2 in the control group. 14 of the thieves were diagnosed as ‘affectionless psychopaths’ (they didn’t care about how their actions affected others). 12 of these 14 had experienced separation from their mothers
Conclusion:
Deprivation of the child from its main carer during early life can have very harmful long-term consequences
Evaluation:
The results indicate a link between deprivation and criminal behaviour. However, it can’t be said that one causes the other. There may be other factors (e.g. poverty) that caused the criminal behaviour. Although case studies provide a lot of detailed information, the study relied on the respective data, which may be unreliable
Evidence of maternal deprivation from separation studies:
Studies which have investigated the effects of short-term separation can also support the idea of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis:
Robertson and Robertson (1968)- A separation study:
Method:
In a naturalistic observation, several children who experienced short separations from their carers were observed and filmed. For example, a boy called John aged around 18 months stayed in a residential nursery for nine days while his mother had another baby
Results:
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 with other children so he gave up trying. After another few days, he began to show signs of detachment- he was more active and content than he had been previously at nursery. But, when his mother came to collect him, he was reluctant to be affectionate
Conclusion:
The short-term separation had terrible effects on John, including possible permanent damage to his attachment to his mother
Evaluation:
John’s reaction might have been due to the separation- it could have been down to his new environment or the fact that he was getting much less attention than he used to. There would have been little control of variables, and it would have been difficult to replicate each individual situation. However, as the study took place in a natural setting, the results will have ecological validity but will be less reliable
Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis has strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths:
Other evidence supports Bowlby’s claims. Goldfarb (1943) found that orphanage children who were socially and maternally deprived were less intellectually and socially developed
Weaknesses:
The evidence can be criticised. Bowlby linked the thieves’ behaviour to maternal deprivation, but other things were not considered, e.g. whether the poverty they grew up in Goldfard’s study may have been most harmed by the social deprivation in the orphanage rather than the maternal deprivation
The effects of disruption of attachment can be reversed:
One of Bowlby’s assumptions of his maternal deprivation hypothesis was that the consequences were not reversible. However, research has shown that even when deprivation has harmful effects, these may be reversed with appropriate, good-quality care
Skeels and Dye (1939) found that children who were socially deprived (in an orphanage) during their first two years of life quickly improved their IQ if they were transferred to a school where they got one-to-one care
Koluchova (1976)- The case of Cezch Twin Boys:
This is the case of twin boys whose mother died soon after they were born. Their father remarried and their stepmother treated them very cruelly. They were often kept locked in a cellar, had no toys and were often beaten
They were found when they were seven with rickets (a bone development disease caused by a lack of vitamin D), and very little social or intellectual development
They were later adopted and made much progress. By adulthood, they had average intelligence and normal social relationships
