Bowlby's Theory Of Maternal Deprivation Flashcards
Did Bowlby’s attachment theory arise before or after the maternal deprivation theory?
Attachment theory (1960s) arose after the maternal deprivation theory (which was the result of the 44 thieves study, 1946)
What are the main ideas of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation?
- continued emotional care from the mother is essential for development
- separation from the mother may lead to maternal deprivation
- critical period of 30 months
- intellectual development: deprivation lowers IQ
- emotional development: deprivation is linked to affection-less psychopathy
Explain why continued emotional care from the mother is essential for development
Continuous emotional care from the mother or the mother-substitute is essential for the child’s normal psychological development, both emotional and intellectual; without this, a child is deprived of emotional care
Explain “separation from a mother may lead to maternal deprivation”
According to Bowlby, being separated from a mother in early childhood may have serious consequences if it results in maternal deprivation- this is because he believed mother-love in infancy was “as important for mental health as vitamins and proteins for physical health”
Explain how separation is different to deprivation
1- separation means the child not being in the presence of a primary attachment figure
2- deprivation means losing an element of her care as a result of separation
- brief separations can be countered a substitute caregiver who provides emotional care = separation may not cause deprivation
Explain critical period of 30 months
First 30 months of life as a critical period for psychological development- If a child is separated from their mother in the absence of substitute emotional care for an extended period during this time (Bowlby believed) psychological damage was inevitable
Explain ‘intellectual development’: deprivation lowers IQ
Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would suffer mental retardation and an abnormally low IQ
What is some supporting evidence for Explain ‘intellectual development’: deprivation lowers IQ?
Goldfarb (1947) did find lower IQ in children from institutions compared to those who had been fostered I.e. those who had substitute emotional care
Explain ‘emotional development: deprivation is linked to affectionless psychopathy’
(Bowlby suggested) a lack of emotional care could lead to affectionless psychopathy: the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others- this prevents the person from forming normal relationships and is associated with criminality
Define deprivation
The emotional and intellectual consequences of separating between a child and his/her mother substitute- Bowlby proposed that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development
What was the aim of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944)?
To investigate the long-term effects of maternal deprivation on people in order to see whether criminal teenagers have suffered deprivation. According to the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis, breaking the maternal bond with the child during the early stages of its life is likely to have serious effects on its intellectual, social and emotional development.
What was the procedure of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study? (1944)
- the sample in this study consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of theft- their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether there had been any prolonged separations from their mothers
- natural experiment
- all the ‘thieves’ were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (characterised by a lack of affection, guilt and empathy)
What were the findings and conclusions of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study? (1944)
-14/44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths (APs). Out of these 14 APs, 12 had experienced prolonged separation. From their mothers in the first two years of their lives (within 30 month critical period)
- only 5 of the remaining 30 ‘thieves’ had experienced separations
= suggests that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused AP
What are the evaluation points for Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation?
❌ Rutter claims that Bowlby failed to distinguish between deprivation and privation. He felt that when Bowlby talked of deprivation, he was muddling the two concepts together. Rutter drew distinction between deprivation (the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment had developed) and privation (the failure to form any attachment at all). In fact, Rutter claimed that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation. Indeed many of the 44 thieves in Bowlby’s study had moved from home to home during their childhood so may have never formed attachments in the first place; this could have been the cause of affectionless psychopathy rather than deprivation
❌ there is also counter-evidence which does not support Bowlby’s 44 thieves findings- for example, Lewis (1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a large scale, looking at 500 young people. In her sample, a history of early prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships = problem for theory of maternal deprivation because it suggests that other factors affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation
❌ later research suggested that the critical period is actually more of a sensitive period- Koluchová reported the case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia who were isolated from the age of 18 months until they were 7 years old (their step-mother locked them in a cupboard). They were subsequently looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully = damage is not the inevitable consequence of prolonged separation after the critical period and that some cases of severe deprivation can in fact, have positive outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare. Cases like the Czech twins show that the period identified by Bowlby may be a sensitive period rather than a critical one
✅ animal studies have demonstrated effects of maternal deprivation- Levy et al showed that separating baby rats from their mother for a little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, though not other aspects of development. However there is always the debate as to what extent animal studies like Levy’s can be generalised to human behaviour
sources of evidence (ww2 orphans, poor quality orphanages and 44 thieves study) for maternal deprivation are flawed. For example, war-orphans were traumatised and often had poor after-care therefore these factors may have been causes of later developmental difficulties rather than separation. Similarly, children growing up from birth in poor quality institutions were deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal care
