Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis

Question 1

What is deprivation

Answer 1

Prolonged separation during the critical period that leads to an absence of emotional care (6months to 2 and a half years but sensitive up until 5 years)

Question 2

Law of accumulated separation

Answer 2

Every separation adds up and will have negative consequences for infant

Question 3

Law of continuity

Answer 3

The more continuous care the better the quality of attachment

Question 4

Three consequences of maternal deprivation

Answer 4

-lower IQ and intellectual development
-damage to emotional development, affectionless psychopathy(lack of guilt and emotions towards others) which prevents individuals developing fulfilling relationships and associated with criminality as lack of remorse for actions
-never fully develop IWM/negative one meaning all future relationships based on this

Question 5

Method of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

Answer 5

Recruited 44 thieves from centre Bowlby worked at accused of petty theft, they and their families were interviewed to assess teens’ level of psychopathy(compassion for others)
-interviewed about early separations from their mother

Question 6

Results of 44 thieves study

Answer 6

-14/44 scored high for affectionless psychopathy with 12/14 experienced 6 months or more of separation from mother during critical period
-however intelligence above average for all groups
-supports idea that prolonged separation can lead to affectionless psychopathy but not that impacts intelligence

Question 7

Evaluation of maternal deprivation theory

Answer 7

-socially sensitive, pressure on mothers especially working mothers and blames for criminal behaviour
-44 thieves research support but refutes IQ consequences
-Harlow found deprivation made monkeys aggressive and neglectful parents themselves

Question 8

Evaluate 44 thieves study

Answer 8

-social desirability bias in interviews as mothers may not want to admit long periods of separation which affects internal validity meaning study may tell us very little about how deprivation affects future outcomes
-small sample, lacks population validity and generalisability
-correlational data used to draw causation
-researcher bias as Bowlby worked at centre where ppts drawn from meaning no single/double blind procedure