attachment- theory of maternal deprivation

Question 1

limitation- flawed evidence (5)

Answer 1

-bowlby himself carried out interviews for study and assessments for AP
-interviewer bias as he knew in advance which teens would show AP. Filedrawer effect- chose data to fit hypothesis

-was influenced by other flawed research
-research had confounding variables- children had early trauma, institutional care, prolonged separation
-bowlby’s original source of evidence is unreliable due to questionable samples

Question 2

limitation- critical period (4)

Answer 2

-bowlby->damage is inevitable if no attachment is formed in 2.5 years (critical period)
-research evidence- good quality aftercare can prevent this damage
-case of czech twins who had severe abuse from 18months old to 7 years old but received good aftercare and fully recovered
-lasting harm isnt inevitable even in severe cases. Critical period should be seen as sensitive period

Question 3

limitation- correlational findings (3)

Answer 3

-third variables (eg. environmental factors) could’ve caused relationship between maternal deprivation+AP
-cant say maternal deprivation causes AP- cant establish cause and effect
-study isnt useful in supporting theoy of MD, which suggests MD causes AP and other problems

Question 4

limitation- deprivation vs privation (5)

Answer 4

-hasnt distinguished between different types of early experience
-deprivation=loss of primary CG after attachment has developed
-privation=failure to form an attachment
-severe long term damage bowlby associated with deprivation is more associated with privation
-children in 44 thieves had disrupted early lives+never formed strong attachments