Disruption of attachment: Institutionalisation

Disruption of attachment: Institutionalisation

1. KEY

   • Example of Privation
   • Institutions will not have 1 consistent primary caregiver for each child so even though the child's physical needs may be met their emotional and psychological development may be effected

2. Goldfarb (1947)

   • A01
     • Group 1-Spent 3 months in orphange
     • Group 2-Spent 3 years in orphange
     • At age 12 Group 2 :
       • Did less well on intelligence tests
       • Were less socially mature
       • More likely to be aggressive
   • A02
     • Goldfarb only studied children from one institute so the effecs may only be for that particular institute
     • There may also be individual differnces as the children were matched on their biological mothers not on the babies themselves. This could mean there may have been real differences in the intelligence, sociability and personality of the babies which led to the later differences
       • These differences may have effected who was chosen to be adopted as foster carers choose which baby they want to have in their homes. Many may have chosen those who seemed calmer and more responsive. Thus the foster group may already have been made up of babies with a better chance for normal development.

3. Hodges and Tizard (1989)

   • A01
     • Longitiudinal study into the effects of institutionalisation
     • Comparison was made between 65 children who had been in an institution before the age of 4 months and control group who were brought up at home
       • At the age of 4 years, 24 children had been adopted, 15 returned to their biological parents and the remaining stayed at the institute.
     • • So some effects of privation can be reversed
       • Adopted children had better relationships with caregivers than children returned to their biological parents
       • Children from the institute had difficulties forming peer relarionships soearly privation has long term effects
   • A02
     • It is a longitudinal study, there was an attrition rate and only those who wished to remain in the study took part in later assessnebts so the sample could have become biased
     • The factor of why children were taken into the institute and then returned to their biological parents/families was not controlled. Thus whatever issues may have been present when the child was institutionalised may well have continued to be an issue later in their lives. In contrast, those who were adopted may well have gone to families where they were very much wanted and given alot of attention and love.
       • The fact that these children (the adopted ones) had problems with their peers however does seem to suggest that the ffects of privation are real and long lasting

4. Rutter et al (2001)

   • 111 Romanians were adopted in Britian before the age of 2. By 4 they were physically and mentally normal.
     • The ones adopted at a later ade showedslowest improvement, but with good care they eventually caught up
   • It is hard to decide whether the findings support the maternal deprivation hypothesis because orphange children suffer lack of both physical and emotional care. They had less stimulation and attention. So their lack of development could be caused by either or both: Abesence of mother (emotional care) AND/OR poor conditions of institution (physical care)

Images and files in the map