Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation Flashcards
What is maternal deprivation
The emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and mother.
What is the difference between separation and deprivation?
-Separation are short periods where the mother is not in the presence of the child- not harmful for development
-Deprivation is the long-term separations between mother and child which are harmful
What is the critical period ?
-2 1/2 years : if maternally deprived in this time psychological damage was inevitable
What two ways did Bowlby believe maternal deprivation was harmful to development?
-Intellectual development
-Emotional development
How did maternal deprivation effect intellectual development
-William Goldfarb (1947) found that children who had remained in institutions experienced lower IQ
How did maternal deprivation effect Emotional development
-develop affectionless psychopathy which prevents strong emotions felt towards others which may prevent relationships and is associated with criminality
Outline the procedure Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study
-44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy : characterised as lack of guilt, affection or sympathy
-families were also interviewed to tell if the child was maternally deprived
-sample was compared to control group of 44 non-criminals but were emotionally disturbed
Outline the findings Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study
-14/44 thieves = affectionless psychopathy and 12/14 had early separations from mother
- 5/30 remaining had early separations
-2/44 of the control group had early separations
-Bowlby concluded that early separations caused affectionless psychopathy
What are the strengths of maternal deprivation research?
-Support from Harlow’s animal study
What are the weaknesses of maternal deprivation research?
-Privation not deprivation: Bowlby confused between different types of early attachment. Michael Rutter (1981) privation = failure to form an attachment at all but deprivation is loss of attachment figure after development has formed. Rutter points out that severe long-term damage bowlby associates with deprivation is more likely to be privation. Therefore children in Goldfarb’s study were “prived” and similarly in 44 thieve study children had disrupted early lives so did not form attchments. Bowlby therefore exaggerated the effects of deprivation.
-Critical period vs sensitive period: Bowlby suggests that damage is inevitable after 2 1/2 yrs but many cases show after care can reverse affects.
Jarmiah Koluchova (1976): Czech twins experience severe physical and emotional abuse from age of 18 months to 7 years but after care they fully recovered from their abuse which shows harm is not inevitable like bowlby suggested. This means that lasting harm is not inevitable and can be reversed with good aftercare.
- Flawed evidence: bowlby interviewed the children himself for affectionless psychopathy and interviewed the families which left him open to bias as he knew the teenagers in advance and expected them to show signs of psychopathy. Goldfarb’s study was also flawed as it was during ww2 so many children had experienced early trauma and institutional care. This means that Bowlby’s original sources for maternal deprivation were flawed alongside his own evidence
However, new research somewhat supports long-term effects of maternal deprivation . Levy showed that separating baby rats from their mother as little as a day had a permanent effect on social development. This means that there are some sources of support for his ideas.
