BOWLBY'S THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION

Question 1

SEPARATION VS DEPRIVATION

Answer 1

SEPARATION = the child not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure
- only becomes an issue for development if the child is DEPRIVED, i.e they lose an element of her care.
- brief separations, particularly where the child is with a substitute caregiver, are not significant for development but EXTENDED separations can lead to deprivation, which causes harm

Question 2

THE CRITICAL PERIOD

Answer 2

• the first 30 months = critical period for psychological development
• if a child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable substitute care & so ti deprived of her emotional care for an extended period of time during this critical period, the psychological damage = INEVITABLE.

Question 3

EFFECTS ON DEVELOPMENT

Answer 3

INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT:
- if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period, they would suffer delayed intellectual development, characterised by ABNORMALLY LOW IQ
- would have been demonstrated in studies of adoption
- GOLDFARB (1947) found lower IQ in those who remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and had a higher standard of emotional care

EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
- identified AFFECTIONLESS PSYCHOPATHY as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others
- prevents the person developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality
- cannot appreciate the feelings of victims so lack remorse for their actions

Question 4

BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES STUDY

Answer 4

PROCEDURE:
- 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
- all interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy: characterised as a LACK OF AFFECTION, LACK OF GUILT about their actions and LACK OF EMPATHY for their victims
- also interviewed to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separations from their mother
- a control group of non-criminal by emotionally disturbed young people was set up to see how often maternal separation/deprivation occurred in the children who were not thieves
FINDINGS:
- 14/44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths
- of this 14, 12 experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of their lives
- only 5 of the remaining 30 thieves experienced separation
- of the control group, only 2/44 experienced long separations
- concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.

Question 5

AO3: EVIDENCE MAY BE POOR

Answer 5

• Bowlby drew on a number of sources of evidence for maternal deprivation, including studies of children orphaned in WWII, those growing up in poor quality orphanages and his 44 thieves study
• however, these are all flawed as evidence
• war orphans = traumatised and often had poor after-care, therefore these factors may have been the causes of later developmental difficulties rather than separation: DETERMINIST view to think that just because separation occurred, that they will become affectionless psychopaths
• 44 thieves study had major design flaws: Bowlby himself carried out the assessments and family interviews, knowing what he hoped to find: RESEARCHER BIAS –> LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY

Question 6

AO3: CRITICAL PERIOD = MORE OF A SENSITIVE PERIOD

Answer 6

• Bowlby used ‘critical period’ as he believed that prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if it took place within that period
• research showed that damage is NOT inevitable
• in some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare
• KOLUCHOVA (1976) reported the case of twin boys who were isolated from 18 months - 7 years old
• were looked after by 2 loving adults and appeared to recover fully
• cases like this show that the period identified by Bowlby = ‘sensitive’ but it cannot be critical
• SOCIALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH: just because the child experienced deprivation, does not mean that they necessarily will become affectionless psychopaths and criminals. Putting a label on them does not benefit them in any way and will make them more susceptible to judgement in adulthood.

Question 7

AO3: FAILURE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DEPRIVATION & PRIVATION

Answer 7

RUTTER (1981) claimed that when Bowlby talked ‘deprivation’, he mixed two concepts together
- Rutter drew a distinction between:
- deprivation: loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has developed
- PRIVATION: the failure to form any attachment in the first place
- claimed that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be privation.
- INVALIDATES most of Bowlby’s study as he looked at orphans who never formed an attachment to begin with, yet claimed that it was deprivation, when it should have been privation: LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY