Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory ATM

Question 1

maternal deprivation

Answer 1

the emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their mother or mother figure

Question 2

affectionless psychopathy

Answer 2

the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions towards others

Question 3

theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 3

• Earlier theory than his monotropic one for forming an attachment
• ‘Mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health’
• Being separated from mother in early childhood has serious consequences

Question 4

separation vs deprivation

Answer 4

Separation means the child is not in the presence of the attachment figure but this only becomes an issue when the child is deprived of emotional care.

Separations where the child is left with a substitute caregiver are not significant for development even if they can provide emotional support but extended separation leads to harm: deprivation.

Question 5

the critical period

Answer 5

• First 2 ½ years of life
• Psychological damage will occur if child is separated from primary caregiver for an extended time with suitable emotional support
• Continuing risk up to the age of 5

Question 6

effects on development

Answer 6

Intellectual development: Children would be delayed intellectually if they were deprived in the critical period of emotional support. They would have a low IQ. Goldfarb demonstrated this in a study of adopted children as those remaining in institutions had a lower IQ compared to those in foster care and therefore had higher standards for emotional care.

Emotional development: Affectionless psychotherapy is the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions towards others. Bowlby said this happened to children who lacked emotional care in the critical period. This is associated with criminality as they can’t appreciate feelings of victims and lack remorse for their actions.

Question 7

Bowlby’s procedure

Answer 7

• 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
• Thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy
• Affection lacking
• Empathy lacking
• Interviewed for prolonged separation from mother
• Compared to control group of 44 non-criminal emotionally disturbed juveniles

Question 8

Bowlby’s findings

Answer 8

• 14/44 were described ass affectionless psychopaths
• 12 had experienced prolonged separation in the critical period
• 5/30 remaining had experienced separations
• 2//44 had experienced long separations

Question 9

flawed evidence and counterpoint

strength and limitation

Answer 9

Poor quality of evidence
* Bowlby’s study is flawed as he carried out both interviews and assessments
* Open to bias as he knew which teens should show signs
* Goldfarb had problems with confounding variables as the kids had experienced trauma as well as separation
Bowlby’s original source of evidence was flawed and so not used as evidence now.

BUT
* New research provided modest support for the long-term effects of maternal deprivation
* Lévy et al showed that separating baby rats from mothers had a permanent effect on their social development
Still other sources of evidence for his ideas

Question 10

deprivation and privation

limitation

Answer 10

Confusion between different types of early experience
* Rutter found an important distinction between 2 types of negative experience
* Privation is the failure to form any attachment
* Severe long-term damage
* Goldfarb studies might actually be ‘private’ not deprived
* Many of the children in Bowlby’s study has disrupted early lives and may never have formed strong attachments
Bowlby overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in development.

Question 11

Critical versus sensitive periods

limitation

Answer 11

Idea of a critical period
* Bowlby thought that damage was definite id a child had not formed an attachment in his critical period
* But studies show that good quality aftercare can reverse the effects
* Eg **Koluchová **reported the case of Czech twins
* Experienced severe physical and emotional abuse until they were 7
* Received excellent care and by they were teens they had made a full recovery
Lasting harm is not inevitable in cases of severe privation so the critical period is actually a sensitive period.

Question 12

confounding evidence

strength and limitation

Answer 12

Confounding evidence
- - - fails to replicate 44 thieves study to get similar results eg Lewis looked at 500 people and found no association

+++ More recent research from Gao et al has supported how poor quality maternal care was associated with psychopathy in adulthood