A - Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis (AO3)

Question 1

What’s a limitation of the maternal deprivation hypothesis? - Mixed evidence

Answer 1

===> Lewis (1954) replicated study with larger sample but didn’t find early deprivation predicted greater likelihood of youth criminal behaviour. Other factors may be involved that mediate consequences of maternal deprivation. Barrett (1997) found securely attached children are more resistant to effects of maternal deprivation

Question 2

What’s a limitation of the maternal deprivation hypothesis? - No clear distinction between deprivation and privation

Answer 2

===> Rutter (1982) suggest privation is not having opportunity to attach at all and leads to more damaging effects than broken attachment. Suggests Bowlby confused the words at times. Bowlby may have overexaggerated effects of maternal deprivation (referring to privation instead)

Question 3

What’s a strength of the maternal deprivation hypothesis? - Case study supporting evidence

Answer 3

===> Genie discovered at 13 suffering severe abuse and neglect. Never made cognitive or emotional recovery through development due to no attachment whereas Czech twin boys discovered at 7 caught up to their peers dur to attachment with each other. Genie supports hypothesis but Czech twins challenge concept that effects are irreversible but they could have had confounding variables