1. Robertson & Bowlwby observed young children aged 1-4 years old placed in a residential nursery and identified three progressive reactions - protest, despair and detachment - to developing the PDD model of responses to separation. 2. The research involved naturalistic observation of children's behavioral and emotional reactions to assess the effects of separation, with observations filmed and sampled over time. 3. While the research identified short-term distress from separation, the PDD model has been criticized for being too simplistic, as a child's attachment type affects their response.

1. Disruption of Attachments
Research into the disruption of
attachments
- John

2. John
John was a 17 month old child who went into a
residential nursery while his mother was in
hospital
During this time John went
from a happy well-adjusted
child to a child so distressed
that on reunion with his
mother his rejection of her
was clear
He was only
in there for
9 days

3. Robertson & Bowlby 1952
A - To identify
the effects of
disrupting an
attachment
P – Naturalistic
Observation of young
children (1yr – 4yrs)
in a residential
nursery (placed
there when their
mothers would be
gone a long time)
Behavioural and emotional reactions
were observed to assess the effects
of the separation
The children
were filmed
and time
sampling was
used

4. P – protest. Children showed great distress,
calling and crying for absent caregiver.
Anger and fear are evident
D – despair. Children become calmer but
apathetic. Self-comfort behaviours were
observed e.g. Thumb-sucking, rocking
D – detachment. Children appeared to be
coping, emotionally unresponsive. Avoided
forming new attachments, no interest in
returning caregiver
F - Robertson & Bowlby (1952) identified 3 progressive
reactions to the separation and developed the PDD model

5. Robertson & Bowlby 1952 -
Summary
C – Most young children who experience
separation suffer distress (damage appears to be
short term)
F – PDD Model
P – Naturalistic Obs of children (1-4yrs) using
time sampling
A – Identify the effects of disrupting
attachments

6. Evaluation for Robertson &
Bowlby (1952)
What did Robertson & Bowlby do?
Naturalistic Observation
What’s good about this?
High Ecological Validity – natural behaviour
What’s not so good about this?
Observer Bias
(also Low control over variables)

7. This is a problem because...
It suggests that the PDD model applied to
all infants is too simplistic and limited
Barrett (1997) found that if a child is
securely attached then they cope better
whereas if the child is avoidant then they
experience the full cycle of PDD

8. P Diddy – PDD model
Song Missing You –
Separation
R’n’B music –
Robertson & Bowlby

9. Other than
attachment
type
What factors might
affect a child’s response
to disruption?
Age of the Child
Shaffer & Callender (1959) studied
76 babies 3-51 weeks who were
admitted into a children’s hospital.
Children under 7 months shown
minimal upset, after this the strength
of the response increased up to 18
months

10. Other than
attachment
type
What factors might
affect a child’s response
to disruption?
Sex of the Child
Boys seem to react more strongly
to separations than girls although
there are wide variations within
each sex as well as between the
sexes

11. 1. Outline two factors that can affect an
infants’ response to short term
separation (4 marks)
2. Outline the findings from Robertson &
Bowlby’s research (4 marks)
3. Identify one criticism of the research
into the PDD model (2 marks)