logging in or signing up hodges and tizard Perrin Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 1779 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: January 29, 2008 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript Developmental Psychology: Developmental Psychology HODGES AND TIZARD (1989)Attachment theory: Attachment theory The theory That emotional deprivation in young children may have serious and long lasting effects Attachment theory: 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 (early childhood) will suffer irreversible psychological damage Hodges & Tizard (1989) : Hodges & Tizard (1989) The method A LONGITUDINAL STUDY Hodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) The participants 23 children aged 16 who had been placed in an institution when they were less than 4 months oldHodges & Tizard (1989): 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 The participant groups : 11 ‘restored’ to their biological parents 12 who were adopted by age of 4 years The participant groups The control groups : The control groups Control group 1= one 16 year old in London school matched with participant for age, sex, position in the family, one or two parent family, Control group 2 = a same age & sex ‘school friend’Slide9: 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 HOW WAS THE DATA COLLECTED?FINDINGS: FINDINGS Relationships with family Adopted group- as closely attached as control group Restored group- LESS likely to be closely attached, LESS ‘cuddly’ harder to give affection to LESS involved with family FINDINGS: FINDINGS PEER relationships (compared to controls) 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 FINDINGS: FINDINGS Other adults (non- family) BOTH groups - MORE attention seeking RESTORED - more aggressive Hodges & Tizard (1989): 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 supportHodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) The findings in brief: BUT Within the family the adopted group and the controls were the most similar Hodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) The independent variable (IV) The group of the participant Ex-institutional (ADOPTED OR RESTORED) Matched control School comparison Hodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) The dependent variable (IV) The responses to the questionnaires and assessments relationships with family, peers and teachersHodges & Tizard (1989): 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 Hodges & Tizard (1989): 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?Hodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) There are FIVE possible explanations 3rd explanation The adoptive parents put MORE effort into the relationship… explains why adopteds had good relationships with parents but not with peers and why restored had difficulty with ‘both’ Hodges & Tizard (1989): 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 adopteds able to recover the family relationships but NOT with peersHodges & Tizard (1989): 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 laterHodges & Tizard (1989): 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 You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
hodges and tizard Perrin Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 1779 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: January 29, 2008 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript Developmental Psychology: Developmental Psychology HODGES AND TIZARD (1989)Attachment theory: Attachment theory The theory That emotional deprivation in young children may have serious and long lasting effects Attachment theory: 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 (early childhood) will suffer irreversible psychological damage Hodges & Tizard (1989) : Hodges & Tizard (1989) The method A LONGITUDINAL STUDY Hodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) The participants 23 children aged 16 who had been placed in an institution when they were less than 4 months oldHodges & Tizard (1989): 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 The participant groups : 11 ‘restored’ to their biological parents 12 who were adopted by age of 4 years The participant groups The control groups : The control groups Control group 1= one 16 year old in London school matched with participant for age, sex, position in the family, one or two parent family, Control group 2 = a same age & sex ‘school friend’Slide9: 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 HOW WAS THE DATA COLLECTED?FINDINGS: FINDINGS Relationships with family Adopted group- as closely attached as control group Restored group- LESS likely to be closely attached, LESS ‘cuddly’ harder to give affection to LESS involved with family FINDINGS: FINDINGS PEER relationships (compared to controls) 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 FINDINGS: FINDINGS Other adults (non- family) BOTH groups - MORE attention seeking RESTORED - more aggressive Hodges & Tizard (1989): 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 supportHodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) The findings in brief: BUT Within the family the adopted group and the controls were the most similar Hodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) The independent variable (IV) The group of the participant Ex-institutional (ADOPTED OR RESTORED) Matched control School comparison Hodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) The dependent variable (IV) The responses to the questionnaires and assessments relationships with family, peers and teachersHodges & Tizard (1989): 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 Hodges & Tizard (1989): 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?Hodges & Tizard (1989): Hodges & Tizard (1989) There are FIVE possible explanations 3rd explanation The adoptive parents put MORE effort into the relationship… explains why adopteds had good relationships with parents but not with peers and why restored had difficulty with ‘both’ Hodges & Tizard (1989): 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 adopteds able to recover the family relationships but NOT with peersHodges & Tizard (1989): 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 laterHodges & Tizard (1989): 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