Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation Flashcards
Theory of maternal deprivation
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Focused on idea that continual presence of care from mother is essential for normal psychological development of babies & toddlers, both emotionally & intellectually
Bowlby said that ‘mother-love in infancy & childhood is as important for mental health as vitamins for physical health’
Being separated from mother in early childhood has serious consequences
Separation vs Deprivation
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Separation simply means child not being in presence of PAF
Only becomes problem if child becomes deprived of emotional care
Brief separations, particularly where child is w/ substitute caregiver who can provide emotional care, are not significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation, which by definition causes harm
Critical period
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Bowlby saw first 2.5 years of life as critical period for psychological development
If child is separated from mother in absence of suitable substitute care & so deprived of her emotional care for extended duration during this critical period then psychological damage was inevitable
He also believed there was continuing risk up to age of 5
Effects on intellectual development
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Bowlby believed if children were deprived of maternal care for too long, they would experience delayed intellectual development characterised by abnormally low IQ
Goldfarb found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered & thus had a higher standard of emotional care
Effects on emotional development
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others
This prevents person developing fulfilling relationships & is associated w/ criminality
Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate feelings of victims & so lack remorse for their actions
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study procedure
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Sample in study consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
All ‘thieves’ interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy
Families were also interviewed to establish whether ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separations from their mothers
Sample was compared to CG of 44 non-criminal but emotionally-disturbed young people
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study findings
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Bowlby found that 14/44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths & 12 of these had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in first 2 years of their lives
In contrast, only 5 of remaing 30 had experienced separations
Only 2 ppts in CG of 44 had experienced long separations
Bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy
Evaluation: Flawed evidence
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Limit: Poor quality of evidence theory is based on
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study is flawed because Bowlby himself carried out both family interviews & assessments for affectionless psychopathy
This left him open to bias because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy
Other sources of evidence were equally flawed
E.g. Goldfarb’s research had confounding variables because children in study had experienced early trauma & institutional care as well as prolonged separation from PAF
Therefore, Bowlby’s OG sources of evidence for maternal dep had serious flaws & would not be taken seriously as evidence nowadays
Evaluation: Flawed evidence (Counterpoint)
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
However, new line of research has provided some modest support for idea that mat dep can have long-term effects
Levy et al showed that separating baby rats from mother for as little as a day had permenant effect on their social development though not other aspects of development
Therefore, there are sources of evidence for Bowlby’s ideas
Evalution: Deprivation & Privation
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Limit: confusion between diff types of early experience
Rutter drew important distinction between 2 types of early neg experience
Deprivation strictly refers to loss of PAF figure after attachment has developed
On other hand privation is failure to form any attachment - may take place when children are brought up in institutional care
Rutter pointed out that sever long-term damage Bowlby associated w/ deprivation is actually more likely result of privation
Children studied by Goldfarb may have been ‘prived’ rather than deprived
Similarly w/ children in 44 thieves study
Therefore, Bowlby may have overestimated seriousness of effects of deprivation in children’s development
Critical vs sensitive period
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Limit: idea of critical period
For Bowlby, damage was inevitable is child had not formed attachment w/in 2.5 years of life
Hence this is critical period
However, there is evidence to suggest that in many cases good quality aftercare can prevnt most or all damage
Koluchova reported case of Czech twins
Twins experienced very severe physical & emotional abuse from 18mths-7yrs
Although they were severely damaged emotionally by experience they received excellent care & by their teens they had fully recovered
Therefore, lasting harm is not inevitab;e even in cases of severe privation - ‘critica; period’ is therefore better seen as ‘sensitive period’
