Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation Flashcards
Theory of maternal deprivation
person
Bowlby (1951)
Separation
Definition
child not in presence of primary attachment figure
Deprivation
Definition
lose attachment
Privation
Definition
never had attachment
The critical period
└Bowlby- first 30 months
└psychological development
maternal deprivation
Effects on development
list
Intellectual
Emotional
maternal deprivation
Effects on development
Intellectual
└low IQ
└Goldfarb (1947)- lower IQ in institutions than fostered
maternal deprivation
Effects on development
Emotional
└affectionless psychopathy
└no guilt/strong emotion for others
└hinders developing normal relationships
└associated with criminality- no remorse for actions
44 thieves study
Person
Bowlby (1944)
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study
Aim
└link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study
Procedure and findings
Bowlby (1944)
└44 criminal teenagers
└interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy- lack of affection/guilt/empathy
└families interviewed to ask about prolonged early separation from mothers
└control group of non-criminal emotionally disturbed people
Findings
└14/44 thieves affectionless psychopaths
└12/14 experienced prolongued seperation
└5/30 remaining thievers experienced seperation
└control group: 2/44 experienced seperation
└=early seperation/deprivation →affectionless psychopathy
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Strengths
Large samples
└strength of combining results of attachment studies from different countries is large sample
└E.g. van Ikzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta analysis had 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures
└Simonella et al and Jin et al- own sample sizes were smaller
└but had large comparison groups from previous research
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Limitations
Summary
Culturally unrepresentative samples - van Ikzendoorn and Kroonenberg, van Ikzendoorn and Sagi (2001)
Biased method of assessment - Grossmann and Grossman 1990
Strange situation lacks validity- Kagan et al (1986)
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Limitations
Culturally unrepresentative samples
└ van Ikzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta analysis calimed to study cultural variation
└comparisons were between countries not cultures
└within a country there are many different cultures with different child rearing practices
└for example a sample may over represent people living in poverty
└stress may have affected caregiving therefore attachment patterns
└ van Ikzendoorn and Sagi (2001)
└found that distributions of attachment type in Tokyo (urban setting) were similar to western studies
└more rural sample had an over-representation of insecure-resistant individuals
└comparisons between countries (e.g. Italy or Korea) may have little meaning
└particular cultural characteristics/caregiving styles of a sample need to be specified
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Limitations
Biased method of assessment
└cross cultural psychology includes ideas of etic and emic
└etic- cultural universals
└emic-cultural uniqueness
└Strange situation designed by an American researcher (Ainsworth) based on a British theory (Bowlby’s)
└can anglo-american theories and assessments be generalised and applied to other cultures?
└imposed etic- trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture to another culture
└e.g. of imposed etic (Grossmann and Grossman 1990)
└idea that lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion indicate insecure attachment
└in Germany this seen as independence not avoidance
