Joyce Robertson

In the early 1960s, her husband James and John Bowlby, both working at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, began to disagree on the factors involved in separating children from their parents.[16] In 1960, Bowlby published a paper, Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood.[17] In the paper Bowlby made what many in the profession considered a sweeping generalisations without evidence stating:

that acute distress is the usual response of young children (between about six months and three to four years of age) to separation from the mother, regardless of circumstances and quality of substitute care; and, by implication, that there is no distinction between the responses of these infants at different levels of development.[17]

By that point more than 25 years had passed when research had been conducted as direct observational studies into the effects of separation of young children from their mothers, mostly in the form of retrospective or follow-up studies. Those that had been completed were often completed in hospitals instead of a natural environments like the home or residential care.[18] Anna Freud interjected in the argument with a review of Bowlby's articles, that she published in the same year, Discussion of Dr. John Bowlby's Paper.[19] She criticised his approach stating:

Neither the Hampstead Nurseries nor hospitals and other residential homes have offered ideal conditions for the study of separation per se. We, as well as Dr Bowlby, used data collected under circumstances where the children had to adapt not only to the loss of the mother but also to the change from family to group life, a transition very difficult to achieve for any young child...

Freud stressed the lack of relevant data in which to draw conclusions:

we need to supplement our observations, excluding group or ward conditions.[19]

In a paper titled:Brief separations by the psychologist Christoph M. Heinicke and psychiatric social worker, Ilse J Westheimer, both colleagues of Bowlby at the clinic, discussed their observations, stated that their data could not determine the influence of institutional factors, including that of multiple caretakers. They speculated that:

if it were possible to contrast a minimal care situation with one involving highly individualized care, then one might get quite different results.[20]

In a paper published in 1961, Maternal deprivation: Toward an empirical and conceptual re-evaluation, the paediatrician and psychologist Leon J. Yarrow conducted a definitive review of research and concluded that maternal separation had never been studied under pure conditions.[21] Yarrow believed the complicating factors were always present.[21] In Bowlby's book, Attachment and Loss,[22] there is a passing reference to the complexities of the institutional situation, there is a disappointing emphasis on the assertion that regardless of age and conditions of care, the young child's response to separation is usually the mourning sequence initiated by acute distress:

The subjects in the various studies differ, e.g. there is a variance in age, the type of home varies, the type of hospital or clinic they visit varies, the type of care they receive and the length of time they at the away from home. In spite of different backgrounds and expectations of the observers, the findings are remarkable in one aspect. That is once a child is aged six months, they tend to respond to the event of separation from mother in certain typical ways.

Without citing the evidence regarding the influence of each class of variable, Bowlby asserts that 'by far the most important variable’ is the absence of the mother, and dismisses other variables as relatively unimportant.

James and Joyce decided to try and determine the influence of variables on the behaviour of healthy young children during a ten-day separation from the mother. The couple decided to become foster parents to a series of young children by providing 24-hour support and make written and filmed observations of their reactions. James made a proposal to Bowlby, who at the time was director of the Tavistock clinic for new project that would look at separation in young children in much much more detail. In 1963, Bowlby assigned £1000 pounds for the new unit and in the same year, Robertson joined her husband at the Tavistock clinic as a research associate to work on a project that would be known as Young Children in Brief Separation.[1]

The Robertsons started their work by conducting a comprehensive research review, similar to the type of review that Yarrow conducted.[23] Their purpose in the project was to study the influence of variables including age, level of maturity and object constancy, previous parent-child relationships and quality of substitute care on responses of young children to separation from their mother, all to illustrate optimal substitute care.[24] The subjects that were to be selected were to be aged between 1.5 and 2.5 years and be healthy, loved and never been out of their mothers care. The methods to use involved non-statistical naturalist observations throughout day, when they are away with the use of checklists along with tape recordings. During the 1950s, James Robertson had used a 16mm movie camera to study the reactions of young children who were being admitted to hospital for treatment, and planned to film, Cinéma vérité recordings of around 20 minutes every day, that could be studied later.[23]

One child was to be observed over a nine-day period while staying in a residential nursery, where staff were well intentioned and kind but could not and would not provide substitute mothering or take cognizance and consideration of individual needs of the child. Four other children were to be selected who would be taken into a workers home who acted as the foster home where stress was eliminated and the individual needs of the child were met by one mothering person.[24] The four children that were to be fostered were Kate, Thomas, Jane and Lucy and whose mothers were going into hospital for a birth of a second child and no other family member was available to care for them.[23] The fifth child was called John, who was admitted to a residential nursery, due to the same circumstances as the other children.[23] The ages of the fostered children[25] and single residential child[1] were as follows:

Young Children in Brief Separation children
Name	Age	Days in care	Type of care	Year of visit
Kate	2 years, 5 months	27	Fostered	1967
Jane	1 year, 5 months	10	Fostered	1968
Thomas	2 years, 4 months	10	Fostered	1971
Lucy	1 year, 9 months	19	Fostered	1976
John	1 year, 5 months	9	Residential nursery	1969

The children who were selected were healthy and happily attached to their parents and had never been subject to separation before.[26] They were allowed to become familiar with the Robertson home.[26] Joyce Robertson found out everything she could about the children, what their diets were, what their daily routines were and what they liked and disliked.[26] When the children moved into the workers homes, they brought along familiar things, like family photographs, photographs of their mothers and toys.[23] Contact between the children and their family via their father who was allowed to visit on a regular basis and if possible, on a daily basis.[23] John in contrast didn't have a comparable placement procedure, rather he was placed in the residential nursery with their normal placement procedure.[23]

In the case of two and half year old Kate, Joyce spent a month visiting the family before the project began, resulting in Kate forming a strong attachment to Joyce.[26] Gradually Kate started to show signs of anxiety after moving into the apartment of the Robertsons.[26] In one play episode, Kate recreates her own house and states that she loves her parents and wants to see them, but her play parents [Joyce and James] do not seem to want her. She stated:Throw them in the dustbin and demands they leave the room, but soon begins to cry stating she wants them back.[26] For Jane the experience is worse. When her father visits she seems remote, laughs unnaturally and cries when her father tries to leaves. When she is out for walks and walking pass her own house which she recognises, she became distressed.[26] The Robertsons believed that at 17 months Jane was too young to assimilate Joyce or to retain a clear image of her mother. Jane became extraordinary attached to Joyce and remained in the state even when she went home where she had to share her mother with a new baby.[26] Joyce believed that Jane's experience was largely positive, even learning new words.[26] When Jane's mother arrived, she accepted her immediately. Thomas, the oldest of the group, suffered the most.[26] He had trouble accepting Joyce's care. In the film he displays his emotions by mixing both affection and aggression towards Joyce and clearly showing his anxiety at the situation. Thomas also avoided looking at his mothers picture. The Robertsons believed that Thomas's state was one of manageable anxiety. When talking about Lucy, Joyce stated that Lucy signalled that she visit the family, which she did several times. On the last visit, Joyce and the family visit a park where Lucy invents a game of separation and reunion, in which she walks Joyce away, then runs back to her mother, then reverses the games, but at no time does she run back to Joyce.[26]

The findings from the project which ran from 1965 to 1976 were contrary to much of the published literature.[24] Separation per se did not cause acute stress and despair, but rather anxiety that could be kept to a minimum and development allowed to continue.[24] Data indicated that 1 1/2 year olds make a complete transfer to the caretaker,[24] while 2 1/2 year olds are more ambivalent. The institutionalized child displayed evidence of trauma and cumulative stresses after six years.[24] Their 1971 paper Young Children in Brief Separation, A Fresh Look was also published in the journal, The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child.[27] In the summary section, the Robertsons concluded that Bowlby had overgeneralised James Robertson earlier findings of how children respond in institutional settings. They concluded by stating:

Our findings do not support Bowlby's generalisations about the responses of young children to separation from the mother per se, nor do they support his theory on grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood. ... but we continue to share his concern about the potential harm associated with early separation from the mother.[23]

The Robertsons believed that no matter how good the substitute mother is, the separation of the child from the mother remains a hazard for a young child due to the discontinuity of the mother-child relationship. Each of the four children were able to form a bond with Joyce, and after the separation, were able to reform that bond with their mother.[23] The Robertsons were convinced that if a substitute mother is provided, the child will reach out and bond with the substitute mother, entering into a relationship that will reduce the stress suffered by the child.[23] They suggested that regular contract with a parent, along with reminders such a photographs of their mother would help the child cope with separation. They also suggested that when a child was placed in an unfamiliar environment, the maintenance of familiar home routines would remind them of their home and family, lessening separation anxiety.[25]

Today, these findings can be found in use in day nurseries and day care centres. UK government policy mandates for childcare provision that regulates the permitted child to staff ratio for childcare providers, to ensure that children receive a sufficient amount of attention and stimulation from their substitute mothers.[25]

In 1969, the Robertsons were attending an awards ceremony to collect an award for their film, JOHN, aged 17 months, for 9 days in a residential nursery.[28] They were told that their film was not going to be shown. However, they decided to take along the film and a projector, in the off-chance that they could show a segment.[28] At the ceremony they insisted on showing 10 minutes of it. Attending the ceremony was Lord Keith Joseph, at the time opposition spokesman on Social Services at the Department of Health and Social Care.[28] He was so struck by the film that he ordered that all key people in his department watch the film. As a result, all the civil servants in the department were also affected. This resulted in an impetus that eventually led to the closure of residential care nurseries in Great Britain.[28]