bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation

Question 1

what is the theory of maternal deprivation?

Answer 1

it focuses on the idea that the continual presence of care from a mother or mother-substitute is essential for normal psychological development of babies and toddlers, both emotionally and intellectually

Question 2

how is separation different from deprivation?

Answer 2

• separation means the child not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure
• this only becomes a problem if the child becomes deprived of emotional care (which can also happen even if a mother is present and eg. depressed)
• brief separations are not significant for development, but extended separations can lead to deprivation, which causes harm

Question 3

what is maternal deprivation?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

what is bowlby’s critical period for psychological development?

Answer 4

• first 2.5 years of life
• if a child is separated from their mother and so deprived of her emotional care for an extended duration during this critical period, bowlby believed that psychological damage was inevitable
• he also believed there was a continuing risk up to the age of 5

Question 5

how does maternal deprivation affect intellectual development?

Answer 5

• bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period, they would experience delayed intellectual development, characterised by abnormally low IQ
• goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care - studies of adoption

Question 6

how does maternal deprivation affect emotional development?

Answer 6

• bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others
• this prevents a person developing fulfilling relationships and is associated with criminality
• affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions

Question 7

what did bowlby’s (1944) study examine?

Answer 7

the 44 thieves study examined the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation

Question 8

what was the procedure for bowlby’s 44 thieves study?

Answer 8

• 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
• all ‘thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy, which is characterised as a lack of: affection, guilt about their actions and empathy for the victims
• their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separations from their mothers
• the sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people

Question 9

what were the findings of bowlby’s 44 thieves study?

Answer 9

• 14/44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths
• 12 of these had experiences prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of their lives
• only 5 of remaining 30 ‘thieves’ had experienced separations
• 2/44 of control group had experienced long separations
• bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy

Question 10

evaluation: based on poor quality evidence

Answer 10

• observer bias as it was bowlby himself who carried out both the family interviews and the assessments for affectionless psychopathy
  > he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy
• bowlby was influenced by goldfarb’s (1943) research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages
  > this study had confounding variables as children in goldfarb’s study had experienced early trauma and institutional care as well as prolonged separation from their primary caregivers

Question 11

evaluation: research to suggest maternal deprivation can have long-term effects

Answer 11

• frederic lévy et al. (2003) showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, though not other aspects of development
• whilst bowlby’s evidence was flawed, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas

Question 12

evaluation: deprivation vs. privation

Answer 12

• michael rutter (1981) drew an important distinction between deprivation (loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has developed) vs. privation (failure to form any attachment in the first place)
• rutter pointed out that the severe long-term damage bowlby associated with deprivation is more likely to be the result of privation
  > children studied by goldfarb may have been ‘prived’ rather than deprived
• many children in 44 thieves study had disrupted early lives (eg. spells in hospitals) and may never had formed strong attachments
• bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in children’s development

Question 13

evaluation: critical vs. sensitive periods

Answer 13

• bowlby said damage was inevitable if a child had not formed an attachment in the first 2.5 years of life
• there is evidence to suggest that good quality aftercare can prevent most of this damage
  > jarmila koluchová (1976) reported the case of the czech twins, who had experienced by severe physical and emotional abuse form 18 months to 7 years but received excellent care and by their teens had fully recovered
• lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation
  > critical period could better be seen as a ‘sensitive period’

Question 14

evaluation: conflicting evidence

Answer 14

• most attempts to replicate 44 thieves study failed to produce similar results
• hilda lewis (1954) looked at 500 young people and found no association between early separation and later psychopathy, criminality or relationship difficulties
• gao et al. (2010) partially supported bowlby by showing that poor quality maternal care was associated with high rates of psychopathy in adults