Section two: Developmental psychology 2

Section two: Developmental psychology 2

1. Disruption of attachment

   • Happen by Separation or disruption
     • Separation
       • realtively short time no permanent separation
       • PDD model
         • Protest
           • during first few hours will protest separation (crying, panicking etc.)
         • Despair
           • After few days start to become alert, seem to have 'recovered'- previous attachment to carer may be permanently damaged
         • Detachment
           • after day or two start to lose interest in surroundings become more withdrawn
         • Robertson + Robertson 1968 supports model
         • Strengths and weaknesses
           • separation should be avoided from findings , e.g. parents should be allowed to see children more when in hospital
             • children who receive foster care do better than those in institutionalised setting- can cope with separation better with one-on-one emotional support
               • many factors affect how child reacts to separation so does not necessarily produce PDD effects
     • Deprivation
       • Loss of something that is wanted or needed
         • Long term or permanent
       • John Bowlby 1953- 44 juvenile thieves
         • Long term maternal deprivation
           • Long-term effects include: affectionless psycholpathology, anaclitic depression and deprivation dwarfism
             • Strengths
               • other evidence- Goldfarb 1943, orphanage children who were socially and maternally deprived were later less intellectualy and socially developed
             • Weaknesses
               • Bowlby- did not consider other factors e.g poverty, Golfarb- most harmed by social deprivation in orphange than maternal
         • Effects can be reversed
           • Skeels and Dye 1939
             • children socially deprived in first 2 years improved quickly with quality one-to-one care

2. Failure to form attachments- Privation

   • Never forming a bond with a caregiver
     • Hodges and Tizard (1989)- studied children raised in intituations
   • Case studies
     • Curtiss 1977- Genie
     • Koluchova 1976- Czech twin boys
     • Differences between cases
       • length of privation and age when found
       • experiences during isolation
       • Quality of care after isolation
       • Individual differences
     • Limitations to evidence
       • didnt just suffer maternal deprivation- little social and intellectual stimulation and general abuse
       • Problems generalising as focus on individual cases
       • Show mixed results for how much children can recover
       • More controlled, scientific evidence needed although ethically wrong to put children in situations of privation
   • Research suggest two long-term effects
     • Reactive attachment disorder-Parker and Forrest 1993)
       • rare-serious condition that occurs in children with arly experiences of privation
         • Symptoms:inability to give/receive affection, poor social relationships, dishonesty and involvement in crime
     • Cycle of privation
       • Children who experience privation have diffiulties caring for their own children
         • Quinton et al (1985)

3. The effects of day care on child development

   • Might affect social development
     • Clarke-Stewart et al 1994- positive effects of day care
     • Shea 1981- positive effects of daycare
     • Belksy and Rovine 1988- negative effects of day care
   • Reasearch varies widely
     • Studies focus on different things and use different samples
     • Methodological problems that may lead to inconsistent results
       • E.g. Clarke-Stewart- may react differently to temporary separation used
     • All rely on correlations not possible to establish cause and effect
     • Dont take into account individual differences
   • research has affected day care practises
     • Scarr 1998 identified good factors
       • Good staff training, adequate space, appropriate toys and activities, good ratio of staff to children and minimising staff turnover so have stable attachment
         • Vandell et al 1988- good quality of care more likely to have friendly interactions