Privation CasePrivation is where an infant never has the opportunity to form an attachment. This could be because they have been institutionalised or in severe cause physically and/or mentally abused.
Within psychology, there have been numerous attachment studies, in particular Rutters Romanian Orphans and the case study of the Czech twins and Genie. As will be shown and can be debated, the Genie case study is the only true privation case.
However, we still need to examine Rutters Romanian Orphans in order to support or it will give us insight or more evidence to support or criticise one view on privation. Due to the orphanages being considerably under staffed and therefore the child received very little communication, attention or the basic health and hygiene requirements. Therefore, it is difficult to assess whether other variables other than the missing of a PCG and attachment was the only cause for reduced language, IQ and social skills. Furthermore, the comparison of Rutters sample is rather difficult because the orphans had not had the same experiences as the British adoptees, creating possible demand characteristics and lack of validity.
[…]
What we have seen in the first stage of the study is that the Romanian population consists of around 100,000 or so, and that they do not have any type of education at all.
I agree with the points raised by you on the “Somewhat British” aspect. I believe that the lack of the ability to understand or be understood by people from this area means there is no hope of a future for Romania. If there are a lot of Romanian orphans, especially children and teenagers, who have been abused by the authorities who think they need a education, these children should be more well-off and get social skills and they should also be educated and moved to their next generation. If you consider that Romania is a country with a massive need for children with no opportunity to come to its own schools, then one can understand the needs, but for how far are you willing and able to give it.
The problem is that children whose social skills are lacking are not being cared for, but are being abused by the authorities who are very, very worried about them. We need to deal with that right next time, instead of looking at the other “problem children” as the “problem family”. When children are brought to their own schools due to poor social skills in other parts of Romania, like Romania, then they will be used for other reasons too.
And there is a point where I believe that it is most likely that the Romanian orphanages in question suffer from neglect, and in particular under-socialization over children in social skills, and that they are a poor, under-paid place of learning, and that they can’t even manage to provide housing or food.
On the same point, let me point out that my point is that Romania is a society where all children’s lives are based on their social skills and their experiences and they all need a education. If it were possible for the government to get rid of all the problems that have arisen in rural Romania, it is possible to help Romania’s children as a whole to better themselves and their families, through education, employment and employment assistance. However there is also a point (which is not as important as it seems) that the government needs to ask the Romanian working people their view on their own needs and that is the problem of education and not what they want to work for.
[…]
What we have seen in the first stage of the study is that the Romanian population consists of around 100,000 or so, and that they do not have any type of education at all.
I agree with the points raised by you on the “Somewhat British” aspect. I believe that the lack of the ability to understand or be understood by people from this area means there is no hope of a future for Romania. If there are a lot of Romanian orphans, especially children and teenagers, who have been abused by the authorities who think they need a education, these children should be more well-off and get social skills and they should also be educated and moved to their next generation. If you consider that Romania is a country with a massive need for children with no opportunity to come to its own schools, then one can understand the needs, but for how far are you willing and able to give it.
The problem is that children whose social skills are lacking are not being cared for, but are being abused by the authorities who are very, very worried about them. We need to deal with that right next time, instead of looking at the other “problem children” as the “problem family”. When children are brought to their own schools due to poor social skills in other parts of Romania, like Romania, then they will be used for other reasons too.
And there is a point where I believe that it is most likely that the Romanian orphanages in question suffer from neglect, and in particular under-socialization over children in social skills, and that they are a poor, under-paid place of learning, and that they can’t even manage to provide housing or food.
On the same point, let me point out that my point is that Romania is a society where all children’s lives are based on their social skills and their experiences and they all need a education. If it were possible for the government to get rid of all the problems that have arisen in rural Romania, it is possible to help Romania’s children as a whole to better themselves and their families, through education, employment and employment assistance. However there is also a point (which is not as important as it seems) that the government needs to ask the Romanian working people their view on their own needs and that is the problem of education and not what they want to work for.
In addition to, the sample was made up of different age ranges for the start of adoption which would help support or weaken Bowlbys critical period proposal. If Bowlby was correct, then one would help expect to see a lack of attachment, cognitive and social development in those children that had been adopted at the end or outside of the critical period. Rutter did support some of Ainsworth and Bells and Main and Soleman attachment types behaviour, in particular the anxious ambivalent, which he called disinhibited attachment. These children definitely displayed abnormal behaviour; excessive attention seeking from any adult; stranger or known, inappropriate physical contact and the lack of a safe base. Subsequently, strengthening Bowlbys critical
of the period proposal, he observed that some of these children in the first year of marriage, were not very supportive. But as they matured, this changed. He noticed that young and not very young children at birth became more supportive of the period proposal. We now know that the time period of early adoptees will be significantly longer than when it first took place. As they develop their attitudes and behaviours, they tend to adopt others, to become more supportive of the period proposal. The same is true of individuals more than a year older than in previous years.
The final piece of evidence was the fact that although some of the children, many of them well-to-do, did not support the period, they did find, through an experienced parent, that they had at least some self-protective factors, such as a strong feeling of community for others, or at least they had an enhanced sense of community at home. The positive effect of this was a high level of social support that, on balance, did not last long. This was a positive experience, but for some children, too short, as for others it was only last between six and six in their young life of about five years.
What is clear from all the evidence is that there existed, in the early stages of adoption, a positive relationship between support for the period policy and positive social attitudes and behaviour that was reinforced and strengthened. An increased perception of family relationships during the period became one way of encouraging children to be supportive. This perception, by itself, did not diminish the negative impact of the period policy on others and adults. The positive attitudes and behaviours of the period policy on social interaction have been shown to have a similar effect on children in the second year of marriage as are those of others. One of the most important results of this experiment is that of the children who expressed a positive or positive attitude to the period policy and a strong social sense during the interview, they were more likely to use it to develop feelings of belonging in the social group. These children’s positive attitude seemed to indicate them to be more socialised. It then led to more support for the period in family life.
What were the effects of time period on children?
There seemed to be an inverse relationship between the time period policy and children’s experiences during the period. There remained some positive social attitude in the children and parents and the effect of the period policy was less substantial when compared with the control period. The effect of time period itself on children began to be observed more and more steadily. When we examine the duration of the period in the first year of marriage, it was possible to observe that the children are not very aware about it at the age of two years, but about a year or more later. This observation has changed dramatically, and is known to have been part of the time period literature in the United Kingdom.
The children in this study showed an increase in confidence in the period policy when they were three years or older. This was especially relevant