attachment- theory of maternal deprivation Flashcards
who’s theory is maternal deprivation?
Bowlby (1951)
maternal deprivation: continued care essential
-continuous emotional (maternal) care from a mother or mother-substitute necessary for normal emotional and intellectual development
separation may lead to maternal deprivation
-bowlby believed that mother-love in infancy is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health’
maternal deprivation: separation different from deprivation
-separation means the child not being physical. the presence of the primary attachment figure.
-deprivation means losing emotional care as a result of the separation.
-deprivation can be avoided if alternative emotional care is offered, thus separation doesn’t always cause deprivation.
maternal deprivation: critical period of 2½ years
-if child is separated from their mother (w/o substitute emotional care) for an extended time during the first 2½ years, then psychological damage is inevitable
-continuing risk up to the age of 5.
maternal deprivation: intellectual development- lower IQ
-if a child is deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period this may lead to mental retardation
-Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQs in children from institutions compared to fostered children.
maternal deprivation: emotional development- affectionless psychopathy
-lack of emotional care may lead to affectionless psychopathy - the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others
-prevents the person developing normal relationships
-associated with criminality.
bowlby (1944) 44 thieves study
-44 delinquent teenagers accused of stealing
-all ‘thieves’ interviewed for sings of affectionless psychopathy: characterised by a lack of affection, guilt and empathy
-families also interviewed to establish any prolonged separation from mothers
findings of 44 thieves study
-14 out of 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths
-12 of these had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of life
-in contrast only five of the remaining 30 ‘thieves’ had experienced separations
conclusion of 44 thieves study
- suggests prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.
ao3 of maternal deprivation: sources of evidence flawed
-44 thieves study flawed bc open to bias- bowlby assessed both deprivation and psychopathy knowing what he wanted to find
-also Goldfarb’s (1943) study of wartime orphans is flawed bc he also used traumatised p’s who lacked good aftercare. this introduced confounding variables
-means bowlby originally had no solid evidence to base his theory on
ao3 of maternal deprivation: CA of MD being flawed
- some evidence from newer studies to support the theory of maternal deprivation.
-e.g. Lévy et al. (2003) found that separating baby rats for one day had a permanent effect on their social development
-means that there is now some evidence for the theory of maternal deprivation after all.
ao3 of maternal deprivation: Bowlby confused deprivation and privation.
-Rutter (1981) made a distinction between two deprivation (separation from attachment figure) and privation (failure to form attachment)- privation has more serious effects
-children Bowlby studied (44 thieves), and others he based his ideas on (Goldfarb’s wartime orphans) may have been prived rather than deprived
-means bowlby probably exaggerated effects of deprivation on development
ao3 of maternal deprivation: critical period more of a sensitive period
-Koluchová (1976) conducted a case study of Czech twin boys isolated from age 18 months (locked in a cupboard). Later they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully.
-shows that severe deprivation can have positive outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare
-means that the period identified by Bowlby may be a ‘sensitive’ one but it cannot be critical.
