Bowlby's 44 Juvenile Thieves study indicates that maternal deprivation has a correlation with criminal behaviour in later life. Bowlby argued that the deprivation was the cause of the problems, and believed that there were other effects such as:
Harlow's work with monkeys shows that there can be long term adverse affects of maternal deprivation, and also that the effects were worse if the deprivation occurred during the critical period. In this, his research supports Bowlby's own conclusions. However, a study by Suomi & Harlow (1977) provided evidence that the effects of privation could be reversed, or at least moderated, which does not support Bowlby's position.
The problem with studying monkeys is that they're not human, and it's not ethical to perform this kind of research on children. Therefore we have to rely on studies that have been done where evidence is obtained (typically in longitudinal fashion) about how children develop by observing them and cataloging as much as possible any environmental factors that might be influencing the process.
Rutter (1976) studied children who had been separated from their parents in early childhood to see whether they experienced problems in adolescence. He found that there was a correlation between separation and adolescent problems, but that this was not due to the separation per se, but rather the factors that had led to the separation taking place. For example, in families where there were poor relationships leading to breakup, the children suffered more long term affects than in cases where family relationships had been good.
Andersson (1992) conducted a longitudinal study of the long term affects of day care in Sweden (Sweden has a famously comprehensive day care program). This study was intended to establish whether the fact that children were separated (albeit temporarily) from their parents on a daily basis were liable to suffer long term ill-effects. Anderrson found that early entrants to day care (those that started before they were one year old) performed better academically and socially when they started school. Children who started day care later also benefitted, although the benefit was proportionally less the later they started. By these measurements, any day care at all had a positive effect, compared to children who had no day care. This suggests that separation in this context does not have a harmful effect. However, it may be that other factors were at work here - for example, it may be that the children who did not attend day care at all were more likely to come from "dysfunctional" families.
Evidence for the effects of privation in humans is taken from case-studies such as "Genie" (see Book 2 p 70), and the "Czech twins" (see Book 1 p 58). Many of these case histories show privation leading to emotional, social or cognitive problems, but also show that intensive follow-up care is capable of addressing some of these problems.
Tizard and Hodges (1989) (see study sheet) performed a longitudinal study of privation, using questionnaires and interviews to obtain information about children who, on leaving care between the age of two and seven, were either adopted or reunited with their parents. They compared the two groups of children with each other, and also with a control group of children who had not been separated from their families.
The results from this study offer support for both Bowlby and Rutter:
Given the claims for damaging long-term effects of separation, there has been much concern over whether putting children in day care is harmful. Andersson's study suggests that it may have beneficial effects, but it is possible that the experience of Sweden is not universally applicable.
According to Scarr (1998) children can benefit from childcare, especially if they come from households that are in low socio-economic groups, provided the quality of care given is good.
According to Belsky (1990) used the strange situation to measure attachment and found that children put into day care before the age of one had more insecure attachments.
An NICHD study (1999) suggests that, irrespective of the quality of childcare, it produces children who are regarded (by their teachers, when they start school) as more "aggressive" and disobedient.
It is important to appreciate that childcare is only one influence on a developing child, and it would appear that other influences such as family environment and socio-economic status can be more influential.
Back to index page