Deprivation Privation and Separation

Deprivation of Attachment Definition Psychology

In caregiver and child relationships, attachment is a two-way emotional bond strengthened through reciprocal interactions. A disruption to attachment is when a child-caregiver attachment is broken, either temporarily or permanently.

A disruption to attachment can damage a child’s emotional and behavioural development. However, the effects on the child can vary depending on the nature of the disruption to the attachment.

In severe cases of deprivation, the bond may be destroyed altogether; this can cause permanent or long-term social and emotional damage to the child.

Fig. 1 - Mother and Daughter. Deprivation, privation, and separation can affect the mother-daughter attachment.

Difference Between Separation and Deprivation

It’s important to understand the difference between separation and deprivation.

Separation is unlike deprivation because the caregiver’s absence occurs long enough for the attachment to be severely damaged or broken completely.

Unless separation occurs regularly, it is unlikely that the child will suffer from social and emotional damage, and the attachment can still be repaired.

Difference Between Deprivation and Privation

What about the difference between deprivation and privation? Deprivation occurs when an attachment that’s already been formed has been broken, but what about if the attachment never formed at all?

Several researchers have researched the effects of privation and found that they may be both reversible and irreversible.

Irreversible Privation

Take Curtiss (1977) and the study of Genie, for example. In 1970, a girl named Genie (an alias) was found at 13 in Los Angeles, USA, by welfare officers who discovered that she had been abused her whole life. She had been tied to a potty chair in a small, silent room, and a straitjacket restricted her movement since she was a toddler.

After she was found, she showed signs of progress as she learned to play, dress and draw sketches of what she wanted. She learned to speak a few words. However, she could not form full sentences or grasp grammar.

Curtis, who documented Genie’s progress, said that she was past the crucial age of learning to form sentences, which is between the ages of five and ten.

Reversible Privation

In cases such as Genie’s, the effects of privation are likely irreversible. However, other researchers have found that, in some cases, privation could be reversed.

Separation: Psychology

Robertson and Bowlby suggested that the effects of short-term separation may be the same as the effects of deprivation despite the difference in the scenarios. They found that short-term separation can result in long-lasting emotional damage. They suggested that children follow the protest-despair-detachment (PDD) model.

The study aimed to investigate the effects of short-term separation on children. Robertson and Bowlby observed children aged 1-4 years old in residential nurseries and filmed their responses when separated for a short period from their primary caregivers.

They found that children went through the following three stages when separated from their caregivers.

Bowlby noticed that the effects of the short-term separation lasted for several months after the separation ended and even resulted in separation anxiety. Separation anxiety is the fear of being separated from the caregiver in the future.

He also stated that children between seven months and three years were the most susceptible to experiencing long-lasting effects of separation.

Short-term separation doesn’t always lead to social and emotional problems. Research by Clarke and Clarke (1976) shows that children subject to severe deprivation could recover.

Maternal Deprivation

Before John Bowlby proposed his attachment theory, he discussed maternal deprivation’s effects on children’s long-term development. His maternal deprivation hypothesis states that if the attachment bond between mother and child is significantly disrupted (maternal deprivation), the child may suffer from the following:

• Lower intelligence levels

• Increased aggression

• Depression

• Delinquency

Bowlby believed the effects of maternal deprivation on social, emotional and intellectual development were long-lasting. He also stated that children who suffered detrimental effects from maternal deprivation are more likely to commit offences and develop affectionless psychopathy.

This can cause a higher likelihood of committing crimes and can hinder the formation of healthy relationships with others.

Bowlby suggested continuous care from a mother, or another primary caregiver was essential to avoid any damage caused by disruption to the attachment.

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory: Maternal deprivation

Let’s look deeper at Bowlby’s attachment theory on maternal deprivation and how he first discovered it in his research. Bowlby aimed to test the maternal deprivation hypothesis by investigating the link between maternal deprivation and criminal behaviour.

Forty-four teenagers were accused of stealing, and the teenagers’ families were interviewed.

A control group was set up with 44 non-criminal but emotionally damaged teenagers. They were interviewed using the same procedure as in the main group. The two groups were compared to see if there was any correlation between maternal deprivation and emotional development.

Results of Bowlby’s Study

Bowlby’s findings were as follows:

• Of the 44 teenagers in the main group (accused of stealing), 14 could be described as affectionless psychopaths.

• Of the 14 affectionless psychopaths, 12 had experienced maternal deprivation in the first two years of their lives.

• None of the 44 in the control group (not accused of stealing) had characteristics of affectionless psychopaths. Only two of the 44 in the control group were maternally deprived.

Bowlby concluded that early maternal deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy, leading to crime. The conclusion supports the maternal deprivation hypothesis, showing that deprivation can cause long-term and serious damage to social and emotional development.

Criticism of Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

Many researchers thought Bowlby made some important observations in his studies; however, some criticised Bowlby for potentially confusing privation for deprivation.