Deprivation and Privation
Early Socialisation
Separation and Deprivation
• Separation – When the infant is apart from the
PAF ie day care, babysitters, grandparents, etc.
▫ This will not normally lead to any issues so long as
the PAF returns.
• Deprivation – when the infant is separated from
the PAF but has no substitute caregiver.
▫ Can have more serious consequences.
Bowlby, 1944, The 44 Thieves Study
• Created detailed records of 2 groups of children:
thieves and a control group.
• The thieves lacked empathy and a sense of
responsibility. 14 of them were diagnosed as
affectionless psychopaths.
• Control group – maladjusted but didn’t lack
empathy or sense of responsibility.
• The children and their parents were interviewed
re. early separation.
Separation from mother before 2 y.o
Frequent
None
Total
Affectionless
thieves
12 (86%)
2 (14%)
14
Other thieves
5 (17%)
25 (83%)
30
All thieves
17(39%)
27 (61%)
44
Control group
2 (4%)
42 (96%)
44
PDD Cycle – Robertson and Bowlby,
1952
• Protest – distress – trying to get caregiver to
return
• Despair – gives up hope that they will return.
• Detachment – becomes more comfortable with
others and will become more sociable. However,
they did not welcome their mother back in the
‘normal’ way.
Robertsons’ Case Studies (1967-1973)
• 5 children, under the age of 3, separated from their
family while mothers were in hospital.
• 4 fostered by the Robertsons, 1 enrolled in a
residential nursery for 9 days.
• The Robertsons kept the childrens’ routines and
their father often visited. Joyce Robertson provided
emotional comfort when needed.
• The foster children showed some signs of distress
but seemed well adjusted and didn’t show any signs
of PDD cycle.
• They accepted their mother back readily.
John – residential nursery
• Initially confused. Tried to get attention from the
workers but found it difficult to compete with more
assertive children.
• Sought comfort in an oversized teddy bear. This didn’t
work.
• Eventually John broke down and refused food, drink,
play and stopped seeking attention.
• His father visited for the first week but eventually John
rejected him.
• When his mother returned he struggled to get away from
her.
• For months after he had very angry outbursts towards
his mother.
• The PDD cycle
Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis,
1953.
• Mother’s emotional care required for mental
stability and health.
• If there is no emotional replacement during
prolonged or frequent separations infants will
become emotionally disturbed.
• Critical period is before 2 ½ years but there is a
continuing risk up to the age of 5.
Evaluation
• Hospitals began to allow children in to see
parents where before it had been banned.
However,
• Other studies have suggested that recovery is
possible. (Bowlby, 1955 TB children)
Privation
• Rutter (1972) Maternal Deprivation Re-Assessed
• Lack of attachment figure completely (as opposed to
loss).
• May have irreversible consequences.
• These children would not show signs of distress
when separated from anyone.
• As children – clingy, dependent, attention-seeking,
indiscriminate friendliness.
• As adults – inability to follow rules, form lasting
relationships, feel guilt, anti-social behaviour, deficit
in emotional, intellectual and physical growth.
Genie Case Study – Curtiss, 1977
• During development (14-20mnths) Genie diagnosed
as mildly retarded.
• 1-13y.o. Genie was locked in her bedroom and illtreated by her father.
• Kept in nappies and tied to a potty chair or bound in
a sleeping bag and kept in an enclosed cot.
• Actively tried to keep her quiet (violence and
growling if she tried to speak) which prevented her
from ever being able to speak.
• The rest of the family were also controlled and
banned from leaving the house.
Genie (2)
• Mother left father and sought help.
• Couldn’t stand upright, vocab 20 words, social
maturity of a 1 yo, could only understand her own
name, didn’t know how to chew, was not toilet
trained.
• After few months – give 1 word answers, learned to
use sign language and could dress herself but still
wasn’t developing ‘normally’.
• Returned to care of mother but eventually went back
to series of foster care – abused and regressed.
• Still lives in sheltered accommodation.
Andrei and Vanya – Koluchova, 1976
• Czech twins – mother died soon after birth –
looked after by social work and aunt for first 18
months – development normal.
• Stepmother locked them in a cupboard for 5 ½
years.
• Discovered at 7 yo – physically underdeveloped,
rickets and lacked speech.
• Cared for by two loving and dedicated women.
• Both boys are now ‘normal’ with an education,
good job and family.
• Why?
Institutionalised children
• Quinton et al, 1985 – 50 women raised in care, 50
women in a loving home. The care group struggled
with being parents themselves – their children more
likely to spend time in care than the control group.
• Triseltiotis, 1984 – effects of privation may be
reversible if placed in a loving, stable home.
• Skeels and Dye, 1939 and Skodak and Skeels, 1949
– children moved from orphanages to homes for the
mentally retarded saw their IQs rise whereas those
who remained in the orphanage dropped – retarded
adults providing the missing emotional care?
Reactive Attachment Disorder
• Recognised mental illness
• Sufferers cannot create emotional bonds or
relationships, lack intimacy and affection, may lack
sense of conscience.
• Children learn that the world is unsafe and so create
barriers, lashing out at those who attempt to get
close.
• This can be caused due to deprivation or privation
but can also occur when the relationships with PAF
is difficult and doesn’t recover.
Hodges and Tizard, 1989
• Aims – what’s best adoption or returning home?
What are the long term effects of
deprivation/privation?
• M&P – longitudinal study following 65 children. By
4 yo – 24 adopted, 15 returned home, 26 remained
in institution. Assessed for social and emotional
competence at 4, 8 and 16 years.
• Results – significant difference in attachment
between adopted and restored children. Exinstitution children had poorer relationships with
peers and were more likely to be bullies.
Conclusion
• In terms of family relationships
deprivation/privation effects need not be long
lasting if they are put into a loving and stable
home.
• Social development with peers is affected by
early attachment.
Clear cut?
• Discuss the research we have looked at for both
deprivation and privation.
• Split the research into two columns – those that
suggest they do have long term, irreversible effects
and what they are and those that suggest they don’t.
• Develop a list of pros and cons for these studies
based on their methodologies. Use your knowledge
from unit 2 to help.
• Remember: Psychology is all about learning things
and then slagging it off!