There’s a difference between Privatisation and Deprivation:

• Rutter criticised Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis, saying that Bowlby was confused with the term ‘deprivation’. He used it to refer to several things- separation from the mother, loss of mother, and failure to develop an attachment with the mother. These things are now split into deprivation and privation

  • Privation: Where a child has never had an attachment to its mother or caregiver

  • Deprivation: Where an attachment was once formed but is now broken

• In reality, it isn't easy to distinguish between them

A case study of privation:

• Rutter (1981) claimed that the effects of maternal privation are more likely to be serious than the effects of maternal deprivation. Evidence for this comes from case studies of children who have suffered through difficult conditions or cruel treatment

Curtiss (1977)- The case of Genie:

• This reported the case of a girl who suffered extreme cruelty from her parents and never formed any attachments. Her father kept her strapped to a high chair with a potty in the seat for most of her childhood. She was beaten if she made any sounds and didn’t have the chance to play with toys or with other children

• She was finally discovered when she was 13 years old. She was physically underdeveloped and could only speak with animal-like sounds. After a lot of help, she later learned some language, but her social and intellectual skills never seemed to develop fully

Romanian Orphan Studies:

• The fall of the communist regime in Romania during the early 1990s allowed the world to see the vast overcrowding in their orphanages. The orphans were fed, clothed and looked after, but they lacked any form of sensitive care or any opportunity to form an emotional attachment

• Since then, various studies of Romanian orphans have enabled psychologists to look directly at the impacts of privation

• Studies of children raised in institutions (e.g. orphanages) may provide more reliable data than case studies, as sample sizes are so much bigger

Rutter et al (2007)- A longitudinal study of Romanian orphans:

Method:

• 111 Romanian orphans who were adopted by British families were compared with a group of 52 UK adoptees and followed over a prolonged period. Some of the orphans were adopted before they were 6 months old and some were older than 6 months. Each child was accessed at ages 4,6 and 11

Results:

• The children who were younger than 6 months when they were adopted had the same level of emotional development as other UK children who were adopted at the same age. However, the Romanian orphans who were older than 6 months at adoption showed signs of insecure attachments and social problems. The UK children who were older than 6 months at adoption didn’t show the same problems

Conclusion:

• The effects of privation can be reversed if an attachment starts to form before the age of 6 months. Long-term effects are more permanent if attachment doesn’t start to occur within 6 months. Maternal deprivation on its own doesn’t cause permanent effects because the UK adopted children had been separated but didn’t show any problems

Evaluation:

• The results with the older children may be due to a lack of stimulation in the orphanage. As a longitudinal study, Rutter was able to investigate the children over a long period of time, meaning the results provide a better insight into the long-term effects of privation. However, they collect mainly qualitative data which, although detailed, makes it more difficult to create generalised laws or theories from

Hodges and Tizard (1989) Studied early institutional care:

Rutter et al’s research into institutionalisation built upon the research by Hodges and Tizard (1989)

Hodges and Tizard (1989)- Children raised in institutions:

Method:

• This was a longitudinal (long-term) study of 65 children who had been placed in a residential nursery before they were 4 months old. They hadn’t had the opportunity to form close attachments with any of their caregivers. By the age of 4, some of the children had returned to their birth mothers, some had been adopted, and some had stayed in the nursery

Results:

• At 16 years old, the adopted group had strong family relationships, although compared to a control group of children from a ‘normal’ home environment, they had weaker peer relationships. Those who stayed in the nursery or who returned to their mothers showed poorer relationships with family and peers than those who were adopted

Conclusion:

• Children can recover from early maternal privation if they are in a good quality, loving environment, although their social development may not be as good as children who have suffered privation

Evaluation:

• This was a natural experiment, so it had high ecological validity. However, the sample was quite small and more than 20 of the children couldn’t be found at the end of the study, so it’s hard to generalise the results. Because lots of institutional children are unfortunately often underfed and malnourished, with a lack of stimulation, it could be these factors that influenced their behaviour, rather than a lack of attachment itself

Studies have suggested long-term effects on institutionalisation:

Bowlby’s study of the 44 juvenile thieves, and Rutter et al’s (2007) study on Romanian orphans and others on institutionalisation and hospitalisation, have suggested that long-term effects of disrupted attachments can include:

1. Affectionless psychopathy (as seen in the 44 Juvenile thieves study)

2. Anaclitic depression: Involving appetite loss, sleeplessness and impaired social and intellectual development

3. Deprivation dwarfism: Infants are physically underdeveloped due to emotional deprivation

4. Delinquency: Minor crimes committed by youth

5. Reduced intelligence: Infants don’t develop intellectually as fast as their peers