7.1.3, 7.1.9 - Deprivation and separation

Separation, deprivation and care

Physical absence and loss of a supportive relationship are related possibilities, but they are not the same experience.

A child spending a morning with a familiar responsive caregiver is separated from another attachment figure. The established bond may continue, the child may receive reassurance and the expected reunion can occur. Crying at departure is evidence of distress, not by itself evidence that the relationship has been lost.

Deprivation, in the attachment distinction used here, is loss or disruption of an established attachment relationship and its supportive care. Privation refers to failure to establish an attachment relationship in the first place. Older papers also used “deprivation” broadly for impoverished stimulation or institutional conditions. When evaluating a study, inspect the children’s actual experiences instead of assuming the historical title guarantees this narrower distinction.

Long separation without a familiar substitute may produce deprivation. Short separation with reliable support may not. Emotionally unavailable care can also disrupt a relationship even when an adult is physically present. Distinguishing these experiences identifies a plausible mechanism and avoids treating ordinary day care, illness-related absence and severe neglect as equivalent.

Short-term responses to separation

Research on young children separated from familiar caregivers drew attention to distress that could be missed if adults interpreted quiet behaviour as successful adjustment.

Robertson and Bowlby described three possible phases. Protest involves active distress and attempts to regain contact, such as crying, calling or resisting substitute care. In despair, the child may become withdrawn and less active as the absence continues. Detachment describes apparent renewed interest in other people or activities together with reduced warmth toward the returning attachment figure. Apparent calm need not mean distress has disappeared. These phases are a historical account of some prolonged separations, not a timetable through which every child must pass.

Robertson’s film A Two-Year-Old Goes to Hospital recorded Laura, aged two years five months, during an eight-day hospital stay for repair of an umbilical hernia. The research aim was to document a young child’s behaviour and relationships during separation. The original film guide explains that selection was from a waiting list within specified age and surgery conditions, and that scheduled daily samples and major events were filmed rather than reenacted. Home observations supplied context.

Laura showed distress and sometimes restrained, apparently settled behaviour; reunion and later behaviour suggested that calm appearance could conceal continuing anxiety. The guide records clinging and disrupted sleep after her return. The finding encouraged attention to children’s emotional care as well as physical treatment. It does not show that every separated child develops lasting damage. Robertson’s original film guide

The detailed repeatable film record allows observers to reconsider behaviour rather than depend solely on a remembered description. However, it is a case study of one child in a particular historical ward. Surgery, pain, restricted activity, unfamiliar surroundings and separation occurred together. Even a researcher’s effort to minimise these influences cannot isolate separation as the only cause. The guide itself recognises these circumstances. Findings concern this child’s observed response; broader phase explanations are interpretations supported by other observations.

Longer-term developmental evidence

Bowlby proposed that prolonged disruption of early care could affect emotional relationships and other aspects of later development, but his evidence requires careful causal interpretation.

His 1944 clinic work compared 44 children referred for stealing with a clinic comparison group. Histories of prolonged separation were more common among the stealing group and especially among children given the historical description “affectionless”. In Bowlby and Ainsworth’s later primary account, this was evidence that real childhood circumstances mattered, rather than difficulties being explained only through fantasy. The description is a historical research category, not an appropriate label for a child today.

The research was retrospective: early histories were reconstructed after later difficulties were known. The clinic sample was selected for existing problems, so it does not estimate the risk for all separated children. Recall could be incomplete, and researchers’ expectations could affect interpretation. Family conflict, neglect, abuse, poverty and multiple moves may accompany separation and influence later behaviour. An association therefore cannot show that separation alone caused stealing or a particular emotional pattern.