Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation Flashcards
Bowlby theory of maternal deprivation
John Bowlby proposed the theory of maternal deprivation (1951) before he proposed his Monotropy Theory. The Maternal Deprivation theory focused on the idea that the continual presence of nurturing from the mother or mother-substitute is essential for the normal psychological development (this includes both emotional and intellectual) of babies and toddlers. Bowlby said that ‘mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health’ (Bowlby, 1953). Being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences – known as maternal deprivation also known as Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis.
Difference between separation and deprivation
It is important to understand the distinction between separation and deprivation. ‘Separation’ simply means the child not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure. This only becomes an issue for development if the child is deprived i.e. they lose an element of her care. Brief separations, particularly when a child is with a substitute caregiver, are not significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation which causes harm to the child.
Bowlby on first 30 months of baby’s life
Bowlby saw the first 30 months of life as a critical period for psychological development – if a child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable care and so deprived of her emotional care for an extended period during this critical period then psychological damage was not only inevitable but also lasting.
What are the 2 main ways maternal deprivation can be harmful
The two main ways that maternal deprivation was harmful was on 1) intellectual development and 2) emotional development
1) Intellectual development – Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would suffer delayed intellectual development – this would be through a very low IQ. There were many studies to support this claim. Goldfarb (1947) found that children who had remained in institutions such as orphanages from a young age had much lower IQs than their counterparts who had been fostered.
2) Emotional development – Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period, they could become ‘affectionless psychopaths’. The concept of ‘affectionless psychopathy’ is the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others. This prevents the person developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality. Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions.
Evidence to support maternal deprivation hypothesis
Evidence to support the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis was conducted by Bowlby in 1944 known as the Juvenile Thieves study
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves study
Procedure: 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing. All ‘thieves’ were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy – characterised as a lack of affection, guilt and empathy. Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the teenagers had prolonged early separations from their mothers – in other words whether these teenagers had suffered maternal deprivation.
A control group of non-criminal but emotionally disturbed teenagers was used to compare if they had also suffered maternal deprivation.
Findings: Bowlby found that 14 of the 44 thieves (30%) could be described as ‘affectionless psychopaths’. Of this 14, 12 (86%) had experienced prolonged separations from their mothers during the critical period. In contrast, the remaining thieves, (30 out of 44) only 5 (17%) had experienced separations. In the control group, only 2 out of 44 (5%) had experienced long separations from their mother.
Bowlby thus concluded that maternal deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy!
Evaluation of the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis
The evidence may be poor – Bowlby used a range of evidence to back his MDH such as children orphaned during WW2, children growing up in poor quality orphanages and his own 44 thieves study. However, this evidence can be seen as flawed since War-orphans were traumatised and often had poor after care. It could be these factors that caused all the psychological difficulties in their lives rather than separation. Similarly, children growing up in poor quality institutions were generally deprived of all care and not just maternal care. Moreover, the 44 thieves study had some major design flaws with the biggest being that Bowlby himself carried out the interviews with the thieves and their families. He would have shown bias in what he was aiming to find.
Counter evidence – not all research has supported Bowlby’s findings on MDH, Lewis (1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale, looking at 500 young people. She found that early prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships. This questions the MDH because it suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation rather than the separation itself.
The effects of maternal deprivation are reversible – Bowlby argued that if maternal derpivation was experienced during the critical period then the effects would be irreversible. In fact, Kulochova (1976) reported the case of twin boys who were isolated from the age of 18 months to 7 years ( their stepmother locked them in a cupboard during this period). Subsequently they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully – this study is an example of research that shows that maternal deprivation during the critical period does not always lead to long term or permanent psychological damage.
Animal studies show effects of maternal deprivation – Although most reserachers are very critical of the MDH, animal research does seem to support the idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects. For example, Levy 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 but not any other aspects of their development. This study shows that there is a grain of truth in the MDH but not as severe as Bowlby claimed.
Failure to distinguish between deprivation and privation – Michael Rutter (1981) claimed that when Bowlby talked of deprivation – he was actually confusing two concepts together. Rutter drew a distinction between ‘deprivation’ – which meant the loss of an attachment figure after the attachment had developed and ‘privation’ which is the failure to form an attachment in the first place.
Rutter claimed that the severe long term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation.
