1 / 37

Developmental Psychology

Developmental Psychology. How important is early life experience?. What do we mean by early life experience? What experiences do YOU think might be important?. Attachment theory. The theory That emotional deprivation in young children may have serious and long lasting effects.

paul
Download Presentation

Developmental Psychology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Developmental Psychology

  2. How important is early life experience? • What do we mean by early life experience? • What experiences do YOU think might be important?

  3. Attachment theory • The theory • That emotional deprivation in young children may have serious and long lasting effects

  4. Attachment theory • The evidence • Spitz & wolf (1946) children who were hospitalised for more than three months suffered depression from which they did not recover

  5. Attachment theory • The evidence • Skodak & Skeels (1949) • Children who lived in institutions were cognitively retarded, BUT if they received extra adult attention their intellectual capacity improved

  6. Attachment theory • John Bowlby (WHO 1946) • The maternal deprivation hypothesis • That children who are deprived of maternal care during the critical phase of their development will suffer irreversible damage • (Affectionless psychopathy)

  7. Attachment Theory • How might researchers test this theory?

  8. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The method • A longitudinal study • (Advantages & disadvantages?)

  9. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The participants • Children aged 16 • Who had been placed in an institution when they were less than 4 months old

  10. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The institution • Had a policy which insisted that ‘carers’ did not form attachments to the children • Before the age of 4 the children had, on average, had 50 carers

  11. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The participant groups • Adopted by the age of 4 • ‘Restored’ to their biological parents • Adopted

  12. Hodges & Tizard (1989) The control groups • Control group 1, matched for age, sex, position in the family, one or two parent family, occupation of main breadwinner, with the sample children • Control group 2, a same age & sex ‘school friend’

  13. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • How was the data collected? • Interview with participant • Interview with mother and/or father • Self report ‘self difficulties’ questionnaire • Questionnaire to teachers about relationships with peers and teachers • The Rutter ‘B’ scale screening for psychiatric problems

  14. Adopted Restored Level of attachment normal low Change in attachment slight rise slight drop Attachment to father normal drop Relationship with siblings below normal bad Showing affection normal less affectionate Parents able to show affection easier than restored more difficult than adopted Relationship within the family

  15. Adopted Restored Mother realised when adolescent upset normal less likely to Adolescent feels parents would know when upset slightly less likely more likely Adolescent feels he could ask for support normal less likely Closeness

  16. Adopted Restored Nobody more likely less likely to Peer less likely less likely Parent's view on level of disagreement low low Adolescent's view on level of disagreement higher highest Who would they turn to?

  17. Adopted Restored Adolescents feel they belong to the crowd less likely less likely Have a special friend less likely less likely Peer relationships

  18. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The findings • Relationships with family • Adopted group- as closely attached as control group

  19. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The findings • Relationships with family • Restored group- LESS likely to be closely attached, LESS ‘cuddly’ harder to give affection to • LESS involved with family

  20. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The findings • PEER relationships, BOTH groups • Less likely to have a special friend • Less likely to be part of a crowd • Less popular with others • MORE quarrelsome, • MORE likely to be bullies

  21. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The findings • Other adults (non- family) • BOTH groups - MORE attention seeking • RESTORED - more aggressive

  22. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The findings in brief: • ALL the ex-institutional children • Were more ‘adult orientated’ • Less likely to have a special friend • Less likely to turn to peers for support

  23. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The findings in brief: • But • Within the family the adopted group and the controls were the most similar

  24. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The independent variable (IV) • The group of the participant • Ex-institutional (ADOPTED OR RESTORED) • Matched control • School comparison

  25. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • The dependent variable (DV) • The responses to the questionnaires and assessments • Re: • Relationships with family, peers and teachers

  26. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • There are FIVE possible explanations • 1st explanation • Class related - the adopted families were more ‘middle class’ (better off financially) than the families of the restored children

  27. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • There are FIVE possible explanations • 2nd explanation • Did the adopted children suffer from poor self esteem, as a result of being adopted, which affects outside relationships?

  28. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • There are FIVE possible explanations. • 3rd explanation. • The adoptive parents put MORE effort into the relationship… explains why adopted children had good relationships with parents but not with peers.

  29. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • There are FIVE possible explanations • 4th explanation • That the ability to form affectionate relationships with peers IS affected by early life emotional deprivation. Thus adopted children able to recover the family relationships but NOT with peers

  30. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • There are FIVE possible explanations • 5th explanation • That ex-institutional children ‘LAG BEHIND’ the controls (normals) in emotional development, and that they may catch up later

  31. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • There is another explanation not put forward by Hodges & Tizard • That the parents of the restored children felt guilty because their children had been institutionalised, and that the restored children were ‘resentful’ at having been institutionalised while their siblings had not been

  32. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • Question: • Is the data collected • Quantitative Or • Qualitative • Explain why?

  33. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • Question: • What are the ethical issues in this study? • Confidentiality? • Informed consent? • Anything else?

  34. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • Question: • Does this study have ecological validity? • Any demand characteristics?

  35. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • Question: • Was the sample biased in any way? • Think about how children might be selected for adoption? • To whom can we generalise the findings?

  36. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • Was this study useful in any way? • Hospitalisation of children? • Homes or foster care? • Adoption or institutionalisation? • IS the state a good parent?

  37. Hodges & Tizard (1989) • If children are emotionally deprived in the early years • What might reverse the effects?

More Related