In another study Tizard and Hodges (1989) studied the effects of being adopted or returning to the natural families to compare the differences. It was found that most of the adopted children behaved in a satisfactory way, but children who were returned to their families from an institution continued to suffer difficulties. This also criticises Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis, but there were still some things, which did support Bowlby such as both the adopted, and returned children were more likely to have difficulties with peer relationships and seek adult affection indicating insecurity. However there were still criticisms within the study itself such as there were many individual differences within each group, which suggested that there are many factors at work, just not attachment experiences.
Also there are three other cases of isolation, which helps to consider this point. The first case was carried out by Mason (1942) and Davis (1947) on a girl called Isabelle. Isabelle was kept in isolation in a dark room with her mother who was deaf and could not talk. They only communicated using gestures. She was six years old when she was released and would behave like a wild animal making only croaking sounds. However she still managed to learn rapidly the normal stages of speech and after 18 months she had a very wide vocabulary.
The second case is also in comparison with the first as it also has a positive outcome. The second case involved male Czechoslovakian twins. Their mother died after she gave birth and the twins were moved around a lot from a children’s home to their aunt and finally to their father and step mother. The twins were not allowed out and were kept locked in a cupboard or cellar. They were released at seven years of age and could hardly walk and had poor speech. Though when the correct care was given they became well adjusted and cognitive able. Both these cases indicate that despite the extreme emotional and physical deprivation suffered as children, positive attention and care would largely repair this damage and allow them to develop into well adjusted adults. This suggests that Bowlby’s hypothesis was wrong as he did not mention anything about recovery from the early experience, but only talked about the negative impacts.
The third case was done by Curtiss (1977) on a girl called Genie. Genie had a history of isolation, neglect and physical restraint, as she was kept strapped to a potty in the attic by her father. She was punished if she made a sound. She was released at 13 years of age to a foster home and was described to have a much younger appearance, was primitive, unsocialised and ‘hardly human’. Genie never managed to achieve social language or adjustment. To a certain extent this does agree with what Bowlby said but we also have to consider the age of release. In the other two cases there were positive outcomes because Isabelle and the twins were released at around the age of 7 whereas Genie had been released at 13, so age of release may be a mitigating factor. Also the quality of care Genie received in her new environment may have been lacking.
Freud and Dann (1951) also offered important information through their study on the 6 war orphans whose parents were murdered in a camp when they were a few months old. The infants had limited contact with anyone else other than each other. When freed from camp they had undeveloped speech, were underweight and hostile towards adults, but were still greatly attached to each other. At around 3 years of age they were brought to England and put in a hostel. The children showed excellent recovery and were able to form attachments with their caregivers. It was thought that because of their early peer support they were able to recover and another fact is that they were relatively young. This study suggests that not only caregivers, but also relationships with peers may help in later development.
Another study relevant for this point is the one carried out by Skodak and Skeels (1949). They compared the development of one group of orphans raised in a home for children who were mentally retarded with another group in an institution. After one and a half years the IQ’s of the children in the institution fell whilst the IQ’s of the children in the home rose a great deal. This implies that children given more care and attention will develop better in terms of social adjustment and language.
The positive outcome of the previous study can be compared to Widdowson’s (1951) classic study on the apparently malnourished orphans. Despite being given Dietary supplements they still remained underdeveloped. But when a new supervisor arrived who gave them better emotional care they began to improve. This is similar to Rutter et al (1998) who studied 111 Romanian orphans who on arrival in the UK at the age of 2, were physically undersized. However by the age of 4 they had caught up and looked like their actual age.
All of the above studies either give evidence for the fact that experience does or does not affect a child’s later development. All the study’s lead back to the important hypothesis made by Bowlby and whether they agree or disagree with it.
The last study I have chosen to mention is that of Quinton et al (1985). They wanted to find out whether children deprived of parental care became depriving parents themselves. They observed one group of women brought up in care, interacting with their children and compared them to a group of non-institutionalised mothers. The women brought up in care were less sensitive, supportive and less warm towards their children. This could be explained in terms of their actual deprived childhoods or various experiences the women had as a result of their early upbringing. This study tends to outline what Schaffer mentioned: ‘Early experiences… do not necessarily produce irreversible effects just because they are early…’ So yet again, this illustrates the fact that continuing poor experiences are associated with poor recovery, but the sooner the child’s care is improved then the sooner recovery can occur.
Early experiences do not necessarily affect later development as there is always a chance of recovery. So in conclusion early deprivation does not give enough cause and effect towards later maladjustment. Similarly Clarke and Clarke (!998) said ‘the evidence is firm, while there is a range of outcomes, early social experience by itself does not predestine the future.’
