This is a longitudinal study of institutionalised children. 25 children returned to biological parent and 25 adopted after the age of 2. Attachments formed, but more developed for adopted children. Children typically sought adult attention and were not popular amongst their peers.
Maternal deprivation (Bowlby 1951 and Goldfarb 1945). More emotionally withdrawn. Earlier studies by Tizard and co-workers found that although institutions provided an adequate environment for cognitive growth, a policy of many staff looking after each individual child, left the children with emotional problems (eg running to any familiar adult and crying when they left the room). First chance for children to form attachments was when they joined a family upon leaving the institution (normally between ages 2 to 7 years). These children did form attachments to their new parents, but a third were over-friendly with strangers. Does an improvement in the child’s environment bring about an improvement in the child’s emotional stability? It is becoming increasingly more common for children to be adopted at later ages, what are the repercussions of this?
At age 8 the children were seen by adopting parents as normal, however, teachers saw them as restless, disobedient and with poor peer relationships. Goldfarb (1945) found that, for his sample of institutionalised children, language and cognitive skills were impaired. This was not the case with Tizard’s (1978) sample. Why do you think this is? So situation is not as bad as Bowlby would have predicted, but some emotional problems remain.
1. How enduring are these effects? Can they be reversed after the age of 8 years?
2. Does the improvement in emotional behaviour found when the child is adopted, compared with when the child is restored to his or her biological parent(s), improve, remain stable or deteriorate, beyond the age of 8? Adolescence can bring difficulties (Mackie, 1982). Lambert & Streather (1980) found that at age of 11, there had been a deterioration. Restored children would have had problems with members of step-families (Robinson 1980). Bohman and Sigvardsson (1985) found that up to age 18 years, adopted children fared better than fostered or restored children. As the adolescent becomes independent, how do they cope with their peers? Children studied at age 8, therefore traced and reassessed at age 16.
51 studied at age 8, 9 of these unavailable for study at age 16.
26 of 28 still in adoptive homes. Further late adopted child added, the 2 not in adoptive homes excluded, 1 in psychiatric unit during weekdays included, 3 still with foster parents included.
12 out of 13 still with parents. 1 in a secure unit included. 3 had been away from home, but were back again at time of study, they were included.
1 remained in residential care, 5 back in residential care after many changes.
17 adopted boys, 6 adopted girls, 6 restored boys, 5 restored girls, 3 boys and 2 girls in institutional care.
Adoptive placements most stable, then restored, with institutional care being the least stable.
No systematic loss of children with fewer problems at age 8 from sample studied at age 16.
Previous group, set up when children were 2, no longer relevant. New group matched on sex, one or two parent family, occupation of main breadwinner and position in family. Families contacted via G.P. 30% live in London, whereas study children spread throughout British Isles, Classmate of similar age for each study child also used, so as to compare data from schools.
This section explains how data was gathered. 3 questionnaires used. Adolescent or parents (careworker, etc). Interviews tape-recorded and school contacted with adolescents and/or adult’s approval. School contacted by post, teacher filled in questionnaires for study adolescent and classmate control.
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Adopted | Restored | |
| Adolescents feel they belong to the crowd | less likely | less likely |
| Have a special friend | less likely | less likely |
Basically, if the child shows a strong attachment to parents, at age 8, then more likely to have good peer relationships, at age 16, and vice versa.
The institutional children (adopted and restored) were seen as more attention seeking than school controls, but not when compared with the London family controls. The restored children were seen as more aggressive compared with both controls (school and family).
Ex-institutional children differ from controls with regard to relationships outside the family. Restored differ from adopted and controls with regard to relationships within the family. Restored children were not liked by parents as much as other siblings. Restored children less likely than adoptees to get along with siblings. It seems that this is because adoptive families put a greater effort into building a relationship, and had been more tolerant; Whereas, the restored group, had few resources, more children, had been more ambivalent about the child living with them and expected greater independence from them. Both groups more likely to seek adult attention, and are less likely to have a close friend (friendly to any peer instead), compared with controls.
A longitudinal study. Independent variable - environment - adopted or restored to natural parent (s). Dependent variable - social relationships. Matched subjects, independent groups. Groups compared with each other and matched controls; also subjects at 16 years with themselves at age 8.
It was popular during the fifties to think of early experiences having a profound influence on children’s social development. Basically, if things went wrong in the first few years of life, there was little hope for the future! Later longitudinal studies evidenced an improvement in initial impoverished social skills, thereby demonstrating the inadequacy of the critical period theory. Additionally, some interesting case studies are described that illustrate this. Nonetheless, language does seem to have a critical period (although Mary’s case doesn’t support this view).
Guardian article concerning the adoption process
Guardian article about teens and their relationships with their parents