Dennis (1960) did a study on Iranian orphans and concluded that there is a critical stage for intellectual development before the age of two. Children adopted from the orphan after the age of two never gained the same IQ as a normal child whereas children adopted earlier could. This research supports Bowlby’s theory and would suggest that there is a crucial period in which it is possible to reverse the effects of early privation. Clarke and Clarke (1976) argued that effects of early privation are more easily reversed than previously thought. After reviewing Dennis’s research they concluded that, “The prolonged time spent in the institution has not had a direct, irreversible effect on intellectual functioning, but has had effects which may interfere with future learning and development.”
One major study on the effects of privation was the longitudinal study of privation. This was a series of studies by Babara Tizard and her collegues. They followed a group of 65 children who had been taken into care before they were 4 months old. Before the age of four they had many different carers and so were unable to form any strong bonds but still had a mean IQ of 105 at the age 4 ½ which shows that their cognitive development was unaffected by maternal deprivation.
By the age of four, 24 children had been adopted, 15 had returned to their biological parents and the rest stayed in the institution. In later stages of the children’s lives (8 and 16) it was found that most of the adopted children had formed strong bonds with their adopted parents, however this was less true for the children who had returned home. This is thought to be because the biological parents might not be as loving and caring for the children as the adopted ones. Bowlby stated that a bad home was better than a good institution, this research shows otherwise.
Although the two groups of children showed different signs of behaviour within their families, at school they all craved adult attention, found it difficult to form bonds with peers and were less likely than other children to have special friends.
Clarke and Clarke (1979) said that adopted children got on well with their families as the parents gave them lots of love and attention whereas in school this wasn’t present so children found it hard to make bonds. This would suggest that early privation did affect the child’s ability to form bonds.
The conclusion of this study was that the early effects of institutionalisation could be overcome by subsequent attachments but there are also lasting effects.
There have also been extreme studies of privation been carried out. Koluchová (1976) studied two identical twins who had spent the first seven years of their lives locked in a cellar and who often beaten. They were barely able to talk and relied mainly on gestures to communicate. At the age of nine they were fostered by two loving sisters and by the age of fourteen they behaviour was normal. By twenty, they were of above average intelligence and had excellent relationships with the members of their foster family.
Freud and Dann (1951) provided evidence that children who form strong attachments with each other, can avoid long-term damage from privation. They studied six young children who were liberated from a concentration camp at the end of world war two. Before the age of three they were very badly treated, and viewed distressing experiences such as hangings. After leaving the camp they were flown to England and were found to not have yet developed speech, were badly underweight and showed great hostility towards adults. However they were greatly attached to each other and became very upset when they were separated even for just a few moments. As time went by the children became very attached to their adult carers, developed rapidly at social and language skills and its is hard to say whether there early experiences have had any long-term effects.
In conclusion, the majority of evidence suggests that early experiences of deprivation and privation can be reversed, and that children are more resilient than Bowlby first believed. However we must take into account the fact that these studies are all very small (except for Tizard’s longitudinal study) and it may be hard to generalise them.