Attachment, Deprivation and Privation

Attachment

Bowlby’s theory of attachment asserts that a child has an innate drive to become attached to a caregiver, and this attachment carries survival benefits. This is supported by Lorenz’s research on imprinting in geese.
Secure attachment, according to Ainsworth, is characterised by distress when the caregiver leaves, but easily comforted upon their return.
Insecure-avoidant attachment is when a child typically does not seek contact with their caregiver and shows little response to their departure or return.
Insecure-resistant attachment is characterised by the child being unwilling to explore, high levels of distress when the caregiver departs but an ambivalent response upon their return.
Disorganised attachment displays no clear pattern of behaviour in response to the caregiver’s absence or return.

Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis proposed that continuous and uninterrupted care from a mother (or mother substitute) is essential in the first 2.5 years of life. Any disruption to this can lead to serious cognitive, social, and emotional difficulty.
The 44 thieves study by Bowlby supports his hypothesis, finding that children who had been separated from their mothers for a prolonged period before the age of 5 showed signs of affectionless psychopathy.
However, the internal working model concept contends that disruption of attachment does not necessarily lead to difficulties as the child’s mental representations of relationships can compensate.

Privation is the failure to form an attachment, often studied through cases of severe child abuse, neglect, or institutionalisation. It is different to deprivation, where an attachment has been formed but later disrupted.
The case study of Genie, a girl who was isolated and abused until she was discovered at age 13, is often used as an example of the severe effects of privation.
Rutter’s Romanian orphan study observed recovery in children adopted into UK families, showing that negative effects of privation can be reversed if given appropriate care. This disputes the idea of a critical period for attachment.
The Czech twins’ case study, successfully formed attachments in later life after being discovered locked in a cellar aged six, demonstrating the importance of the quality of care post-privation in the child’s recovery.