Table A: Descriptive statistics for scores on WASI and ABAS-II for 154
mothers and children
Table B: Variability measures for each variable illustrating normal 165
distribution of data
Table C: Descriptive statistics for males’ and females’ collective scores 170
on test measures
Table D: Descriptive statistics for males’ and females’ scores on test 182
measures
Table E: Descriptive statistics for males’ and females’ scores on the 190
Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire subtests
Table F: Data for linear regression of stigma onto self-esteem 209
Table G: Data for linear regression of attachment-related problems 213
onto self-esteem
Table H: Data for linear regression of attachment-related problems 215
onto stigma
Table I: Data for linear regression of attachment problems onto 218
social support
Table J: Data for partial correlation between stigma and self-esteem, 221
controlling for attachment problems
Figure 1: Path analysis model of proposed relationships among variables 116
Figure 2: Histogram to illustrate children’s scores on the WASI 155
12
Figure 4: Histogram to illustrate children’s scores on the ABAS-II 157
Figure 5: Histogram to illustrate mother’s scores on the ABAS-II 158
Figure 6: Histogram to show comparison means between mother’s 159
and children’s scores on the WASI and the ABAS-II
Figure 7: Line chart to illustrate comparison scores between mother’s 160
and children’s scores on the WASI
Figure 8: Line chart to illustrate comparison scores between mother’s 160
and children’s scores on the ABAS-II
Figure 9: Histograms to illustrate the normal distribution of data across 166
measures
Figure 10: Cumulative frequency chart to show children’s scores on the 171
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
Figure 11: Histogram to show the distribution of children’s scores on the 172
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
Figure 12: Cumulative frequency chart to show children’s scores on the 173
Perception of Stigma Questionnaire
Figure 13: Histogram to illustrate children’s scores on the Perception of 174
Stigma Questionnaire
Figure 14: Cumulative frequency chart to show children’s scores on the 176
Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 15: Histogram to illustrate children’s scores on the Adolescent 177
Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 16: Cumulative frequency chart to show children’s scores on the 178
13
Figure 17: Histogram to illustrate children’s scores on the Social Support 179 Questionnaire
Figure 18: Histogram to show comparison means for females’ and males’ 183
scores on test measures
Figure 19: Line chart to illustrate females’ and males’ scores on the Rosenberg 184
Self-esteem Scale
Figure 20: Histogram to illustrate females’ scores on the Rosenberg 185
Self-esteem Scale
Figure 21: Histogram to illustrate males’ scores on the Rosenberg 186
Self-esteem Scale
Figure 22: Line chart to illustrate females’ and males’ scores on the 187
Perception of Stigma Scale
Figure 23: Histogram to illustrate females’ scores on the Perception 188
of Stigma Scale
Figure 24: Histogram to illustrate males’ scores on the Perception 189
of Stigma Scale
Figure 25: Histogram to show comparison means for children’s scores 191
on Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire subtests
Figure 26: Line chart to illustrate females’ and males’ scores on the 192
Angry Distress subscale of the Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 27: Histogram to show females’ scores on the Angry Distress 193
subscale of the Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 28: Histogram to show males’ scores on the Angry Distress 194
subscale of the Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 29: Line chart to illustrate females’ and males’ scores on the 195
14
Figure 30: Histogram to show females’ scores on the Availability 196
subscale of the Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 31: Histogram to show males’ scores on the Availability 197
subscale of the Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 32: Line chart to illustrate females’ and males’ scores on the 199
Goal Corrected Partnership subscale of the Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 33: Histogram to show females’ scores on the Goal Corrected 200
Partnership subscale of the Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 34: Histogram to show males’ scores on the Goal Corrected 201
Partnership subscale of the Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire
Figure 35: Line chart to illustrate females’ and males’ scores on the 202
Social Support Questionnaire
Figure 36: Histogram to show females’ scores on the Social Support 203
Questionnaire
Figure 37: Histogram to show males’ scores on the Social Support 204
Questionnaire
Figure 38: Scatterplot and regression line illustrating the relationship 208
between stigma and self-esteem
Figure 39: Scatterplot and regression line indicating the relationship 212
between attachment-related problems and self-esteem
Figure 40: Scatterplot and regression line indicating the relationship 214
between attachment-related problems and stigma
Figure 41: Scatterplot and regression line indicating the relationship 217
between attachment-related problems and social support
15
showing r² and β coefficients
Figure 43: Children’s raw scores on the Perception of Stigma 247
16
Introduction
Within British culture, the issue of procreation by people with learning disabilities has long been a controversial subject, the examination of which reveals an unsavoury history.
During the early 1900’s, thinking on the subject of disability was heavily influenced by Eugenics theory (Digby, 2005). This led to the view that procreation by people with learning disabilities was a risk to the collective gene pool. McCarthy (1999) documents how society attempted to protect itself from this risk by routinely institutionalising those deemed genetically inferior. Once institutionalised, many were sterilised involuntarily or segregated on the basis of gender, reducing any likelihood of pregnancy (McCarthy, 1999).
This view slowly began to change throughout the mid to late 1900’s, due to the pioneering work of academics such as Wolfensberger (1972). Wolfensberger's work became known as the normalisation movement, the principles of which promoted the rights of the learning disabled to a normal life.
Today there is a range of legislation that promotes and protects the parenting rights of people with learning disabilities. This is most recently evident in the government White Paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability (Department of Health, 2001).
Sadly, it is nonetheless the case that a significant gap exists between the ideals of the legislation and the reality for many of these families. As Emerson, Malam, Davies and Spencer (2005) report, in this country approximately half of the children born to people with learning disabilities are no longer in their care.
It appears that there are a number of ways in which such people struggle in the parenting role (Feldman, 1994). Notwithstanding the drawbacks of limited cognitive ability, they typically have to contend with low socio-economic status (McGaw and Newman, 2005) and a paucity of services to meet their needs (Tarleton, Ward and
17
Howarth, 2006). Many are socially isolated (Llewellyn, McConnell, Cant and Westbrook, 1999) and suffer mental health problems at a rate at least three times higher than the general population (Cooper, Smiley, Morrison, Williamson and Allan, 2007).
While these factors no doubt contribute to the high level of child removal into care, there is also evidence to suggest these parents are treated prejudicially by the statutory services. It seems learning disability is often considered a risk factor to safe parenting (Booth, Booth, and McConnell, 2005), despite evidence that intellectual functioning does not relate to parenting ability unless it falls below an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 60 (Budd and Greenspan, 1984).
There is a small body of literature on outcomes for the children of parents with learning disabilities. While numerous methodological weaknesses in these studies mean only tentative conclusions can be drawn, there is suggestion that they may be at risk of developmental problems (Feldman, Case, Towns and Betel, 1985; Feldman and Walton Allen, 1997), psychological and social difficulties (Gillberg and Geijer- Karlsson, 1983; McGaw, Shaw and Beckley, 2007), complexities within the parent- child relationship (Kohler and Didier, 1974; O’Neill, 1987) and maltreatment (Booth and Booth, 1997; Ronai, 1997).
There is also indication that children may be vulnerable to ‘courtesy stigma’
(Goffman, 1963) – a level of discrimination that arises from being aligned with their parents’ stigmatised social status (Jahoda, Markova and Cattermole, 1989). Where this occurs, it is likely to pose a risk to a child’s self-esteem (Wahl and Harman, 1989); presenting a number of potential risks to their well-being (Emler, 2001). Courtesy stigma is an understudied area in the literature; only one previous
investigation has considered this issue (Perkins, Holburn, Deaux, Flory and Vietze, 2002). No research was found which explored what might protect children against such stigma and promote resilient functioning.
This research was designed to address this gap in the literature. It investigated the role of two key resilience variables; attachment to mother and social support, which
18
have been shown to support adaptive functioning for children, across a range of undesirable circumstances (Masten, 2001).
This study took a variable-focused, quantitative approach; which allowed for clear definitions of risk and adaptive behaviour. A model was therefore designed which conceptualised courtesy stigma as a threat to a child’s well-being, good self-esteem as an adaptive outcome and attachment and social support as resilience variables. Twenty-four children took part in this research, recruited from nine National Health Service (NHS) trusts and voluntary agencies across England. Children did not have a learning disability themselves and were not subject to child protection plans. All were living at home with their mother, who was their primary care-giver.
Research findings indicated that where a child possessed a good attachment relationship to their mother, their self-esteem was protected against the negative effects of courtesy stigma. Their level of social support was seen to be a by-product of attachment style; those with insecure attachment reporting fewer supportive relationships. Overall, children reported few peer friendships; their support tended to be sought within the family network.
These findings indicate that services to parents with learning disabilities should look to include attachment-based interventions in clinical practice.
This research therefore provides a contribution to the evidence base on resilience in the children of parents with learning disabilities.
19
Chapter 1: Background
1.1 Definition of learning disability
Over the past century, people with learning disabilities have been labelled idiots, imbeciles, feeble minded, spastics, mentally deficient, mongoloids, mentally retarded and mentally handicapped.
In an attempt to reduce stigmatisation, there has been considerable debate in recent years over the most appropriate name for this group of intellectual disorders. The term ‘learning disabilities’ is now commonly adopted by health and social services professionals in the United Kingdom. Throughout this thesis, the term ‘learning disabilities’ or ‘learning disability’ is used.
Attempts have been made to understand learning disability in terms of a medical diagnosis and a relationship to society as a whole.