Discuss the potential effect of deprivation or trauma in childhood on

later development

Deprivation refers to a lack or denial of something that is or can be

considered to be a necessity. In psychological terms, it specifically means a
lacking of something that is contributes heavily to a person’s development.
Lacking attentive and personal care from childhood can bring effects that can
carry over into later development. On the other hand, trauma is a deeply
distressing or disturbing experiences suffered before hand, which can lead to
impaired cognition and limits a person’s development. These two are factors
that are argued to be one of the major causes of damaged/hampered
development.
The suffering of deprivation and trauma during childhood can disrupt
the formation of attachment and cause cognitive impairment in a child’s later
development. However, a child may develop resilience that protects them
from damaging effects of such stressful events.

A deprived and highly traumatizing childhood can impact the formation

of attachment in further development, negatively and massively, as well as
physical and cognitive/mental development. An environment where the child
is lacking in attention and care from family and friends around, can lead to an
impaired physical growth (in height, muscle mass, etc.) low cognitive skills
and growth, but also constraint or indecisive attachment to a certain someone,
or everyone. The effects of deprivation and trauma can be seen from the case
study of Rutter (2007). Rutter’s (2007) investigation of the progress of
orphans under the age of 2 brought to the UK for adoption was aimed to find
out whether it was separation from the mother or severe circumstances in
Romania that was responsible for negative effects that can be seen in the
child and his/her development. He studied both British and Romanian children
via three groups of those adopted before the age of 6 months, those adopted
between 6 months and 2 years (24 months), and those adopted after the age
of two.
 The Romanian children are the adoptees that has experienced
deprived situations (via the conflicts occurring in Romania during the 90s,
when they were born), and the British children are adoptees that did not
experienced a deprived environment. They would then be compared, by being
assessed via interviews to the adoptive parents about the attachment style
they think they have, and their physical measurements (height and the
circumference of their head). Tests such as the Denver Developmental
quotient were also administrated for cognitive functioning and attachment.

Results showed that the Romanian adoptees had lower score for
cognitive functioning and attachment, were shorter and had smaller head
circumference than the Brits, and also displayed disinhibited attachment,
which can range from wandering off, inattentive to the parents whereabouts,
and lack of close-attention seeking behaviour. At age of 4, children adopted
before 6 months and between 6-24 months showed no significant impairment.
Before 6 months also no attachment disorder. For children adopted after 24
months, cognitive deficit remained. Commented [CA1]: Pendekin

The study showed just how a deprived environment, which caused

trauma, can heavily impact cognitive and physical development, as seen by
the Romanian adoptees who suffered bad experiences from the conflict that
occurred in Romania at the time, during their early years of childhood.
Formation of attachment was also affected, if not slowly by the conditions in
Romania, causing the children to, reluctantly, attach to their adoptive parents.

However, a counter-argument to the previous point is that, a child

might not be affected by the risk factors of a deprived environment or bad
experiences. This is primarily down to resilience to the effects that is brought
upon by the risk factors. Resilience essentially means the ability to recover or
‘bounce back from difficult situations. How children eliminate effects of risk
factors is by the presence and size of protective factors. The so called factors
are responsible for a child to not be affected by risk factors, such deprived
environment and trauma(s). In other words, protective factors such as
attentive/caring parents, good education, intelligence, etc., will make the
individual more resilient to risk factors (social isolation, drugs, alcohol, crime,
bad behavior).
We can see this in the study of Werner in 2005. Werner carried out a
large-scale longitudinal design in the Kauai Longitudinal Study, where
multiracial cohorts of 698 children, born in 1995 on the island of Kauai were
examined at ages 1, 2, 10, 18, 32, and 40 years, all of which had experienced
a cluster of risk factor. However, Werner found out that 2/3 of the sample-
faced issues regarding their development at ages of 11 and 18 years. Whilst,
the rest did not, as they have developed a stronger resilience to the risk
factors, as shown by their behavior.
The study essentially shows that protective factors such as intelligence,
talent, and healthy relationships with his/her social circle can heavily develop
a person’s resilience to risk presented by the risk factors, as a third of the
participants were not affected.

Closing this essay, deprivation and trauma during childhood can

disrupt formation of attachment, in addition to cognitive impairment in later
development. However, the effects of deprivation and trauma can be canceled
out by a child’s resilience.
To conclude, there is still not a definitive answer to effects of deprived
environments and trauma. We can only say that deprivation and traumatic
experiences only has a potential to affect development, with effects of
cognitive impairment and physical growth limitations in later development, as
it seen by the children of the Rutter study, where Romanian adoptees were
physically inferior to the British adoptees, and also had negative signs of
attachment and lower cognitive skills. However it is also important to note the
timing of the adaptation, as the participants were split into several groups
based on how old the kids were pre-adoption.
However, the effects of deprivation and trauma can be prevented if the
child had protective factors that can minimize or eliminate the effects of the
risks factors. The children see this from the Werner study, who did not suffer
the same results as the rest.