Effects of Institutionalisation

1. Effects of Institutionalisation HODGES AND TIZARD (1989)

2. Attachment theory • John Bowlby (WHO 1946) The maternal deprivation hypothesis Believed that children who are deprived of maternal care during the critical phase of their development (early childhood) will suffer irreversible psychological damage (Affectionless psychopathy)

3. Maternal Deprivation Theory The evidence Spitz & wolf (1946) Found that children who were hospitalised for more than three months suffered from depression

4. Skodak & Skeels (1949) Found that children who lived in institutions were cognitively retarded, BUT if they received extra adult attention their intellectual capacity improved. Rutter (2010) Found that later adopted children showed disinhibited attachment at age 4, 11 an 15

5. Hodges & Tizard (1989) Conducted a LONGITUDINAL STUDY. The participants were 23 adolescents aged 16 who had been placed in an institution when they were less than 4 months old. The institution had a policy which insisted that ‘carers’ did not form attachments to the children. Before the age of 4 the children had, on average, 50 carers!

6. The participant groups • 11 children who were ‘restored’ to their biological parents • 12 children who were adopted by age of 4 years • Control group 1 were 6 year olds from a London school matched with the participants for age, sex, position in the family, one or two parent family • Control group 2 was a same age & sex ‘school friend

7. HOW WAS THE DATA COLLECTED? • Interview with participant • interview with mother and/or father • self report questionnaire • questionnaire to teachers about relationships with peers and teachers • The Rutter ‘B’ scale screening for psychiatric problems Triangulation of data

8. FINDINGS Relationships with family The Adopted group- were as closely attached to their family as the control group The Restored group- were LESS closely attached, LESS ‘cuddly’, harder to give affection to, and LESS involved with their family

9. FINDINGS PEER relationships. Compared to controls, BOTH groups of institutionalised children • Were less likely to have a special friend • Were less likely to be part of a crowd • Were less popular with others • Were MORE quarrelsome, • Were MORE likely to be bullies

10. FINDINGS With Other adults (non- family) • BOTH groups were MORE attention seeking than controls • RESTORED children were also more aggressive

11. Hodges & Tizard (1989) ALL the ex-institutional children were more ‘adult orientated’, less likely to have a special friend and less likely to turn to peers for support  BUT within the family the adopted group and the controls were the most similar

12. Hodges & Tizard (1989) What type of experiment was this? • Natural • Quasi • Field What was the independent variable (IV) • Ex-institutional (ADOPTED OR RESTORED) • Matched control • School comparison control

13. Hodges & Tizard (1989) How was the dependent variable (DV) measured? • The responses to the questionnaires and assessments • relationships with family, peers and teachers

14. Hodges & Tizard (1989) There are a number of possible explanations for these findings: 1st explanation The adopted children may have suffered from poor self esteem as a result of being adopted, which affects other relationships.

15. Hodges & Tizard (1989) 2nd explanation Maybe the adoptive parents put MORE effort into the relationship… explains why adopted children had good relationships with parents but not with peers and why restored had difficulty with ‘both.’

16. Hodges & Tizard (1989) 3rd explanation That the ability to form affectionate relationships with peers IS affected by early life emotional deprivation. Thus adopted children were able to recover the family relationships but NOT with peers.

17. Summary Hodges and Tizard believed that their findings demonstrate that children who are deprived of close and lasting attachments to adults in their first years of life can make such attachments later, although this does depend on the adults concerned and how much they nurture such attachments.   Hodges and Tizard offer an explanation for why the adopted children were more likely to overcome some of the problems of early institutional upbringing better than the restored children. The financial situation of the adoptive families was often better, they had on average fewer children to provide for, and the adoptive parents were particularly highly motivated to have a child and to develop a relationship with that child. The biological parents in Hodges and Tizard's sample seemed to have been 'more ambivalent about their child living with them'.

18. Summary: Key study of children raised in institutions –Hodges and Tizard (1989) The home had a high turnover of staff, and there was a policy against letting children form attachments with the carers Longitudinal study 65 children placed in residential nursery before 4 months old. Hadn't had opportunity to form close attachments with caregivers. Age of 4 some children had returned home to mum. Some adopted, some stayed in nursery. Results: 16 years old adopted group had strong family relationships. Those who stayed in nursery or returned to mothers showed poorer relationships with family and peers than those adopted. Conclusion: children can recover from early maternal privation if they receive good quality care. However social development may not be as good as those who have never suffered privation. Evaluation: Natural experiment – high EV However, small sample. More than 20 couldn’t be found at the end of the study (participant attrition!)– hard to generalise the results

19. Prep Choose one activity from slides 3-5But if you select slide 1 then you must also do slide 2 This is your prep - due next Friday 24th March Make clear on your work which slides you have selected 

20. Slide 1 worth 4 marks

21. Slide 2 worth 4 marks

22. Slide 3 worth 9 marks

23. Slide 4 worth 12 marks

24. 16 mark question Outline and evaluate research into the effects of institutionalisation Slide 5 worth 16 marks