bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation Flashcards
separation vs deprivation
- separation simply means the child not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure
- this only becomes a problem is the child is deprived of emotional care
- brief separations are not significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation which by definition causes harm
critical period
- bowlby saw the first 2.5 years of life as a critical period for psychological development
- if a child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable care and therefore deprived of emotional care for a long period during this critical period, then bowlby believed psychological damage was inevitable
- believed there was a continuing risk up to the age of 5
effects on intellectual development (goldfarb’s research)
- if children deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period then they would experience delayed intellectual development, or a low IQ
- this has been demonstrated in studies of adoption, for example goldfarb found lower IQs in children who had remained in institutions in comparison to those who were fostered
effects on emotional development
- bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others
- this prevents someone from developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality
- affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions
bowlby’s 44 thieves study
aim - examined link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation
procedure -
- 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
- all interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (lack of affection, lack of guilt for their actions, lack of empathy for victims)
- families also interviewed to see if the thieves had prolonged early separations from mothers
- sample compared to control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people
findings -
- 14/44 criminals could be described as affectionless psychopaths
- 12 of these had experienced prolonged separations in their first 2 years of life
- only 2/44 in the control group had experienced separations
conclusion - prolonged early separation / deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy
evaluation - flawed evidence
- limitation of theory is the poor quality evidence it is based on
- in 44 thieves study, bowlby himself carried out all the interviews, which leaves him open to bias because he already knew which teenagers were expected to show signs of psychopathy
- bowlby was also influenced by goldfarb on the development of children in wartime orphanages
- bowlby’s origins sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws and would nowadays not be taken seriously as evidence
evaluation - deprivation and privation (rutter)
- limitation is bowlby’s confusion between the different types of early experience
- rutter drew important distinction between two types of negative early experience
- deprivation strictly refers to the loss of primary attachment figure
- privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place
- the severe long-term damage bowlby identified is more likely to be privation than deprivation
- children studied by goldfarb may have been prived rather than deprived
- bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in development
evaluation - critical vs sensitive periods (koluchova)
- for bowlby, 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 or all of this damage
- koluchova reported the case of the czech twins, who experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from 18 months until 7 years
- they were severely emotional damaged however they received excellent care by their teens and had recovered fully
- lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation, critical period is therefore more of a sensitive period
