bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation : evaluation

Question 1

what does it mean when we say that the evidence may be poor

Answer 1

Bowlbydrew on a number of sources of evidence for maternal deprivation including studies of children orphaned during 2nd World War

his evidence:
- growing up in poor quality orphanages
- hiss 44 thieves study
are all flawed

War orphans were traumatised and often had poor aftercare, therefore, these factors might have been the causes of later developmental difficulties rather than separation
SIMILARLY, children growing up from birth in poor quality were deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal care

Question 2

how is the 44 thieves study flawed evidence

Answer 2

the 44 thieves study had some major design flaws, mostly bias

e.g. Bowlby himself carried out the assessment for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews, knowing what he hoped to find

Question 3

what are some counter-evidence to Bowlby’s findings

Answer 3

not all research has supported Bowlb’s findings

e.g. HILDA LEWIS (1954) spatially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger 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

This is a problem for the theory of maternal deprivation because it suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation

Question 4

what research supports the long - term effects of maternal deprivation

Answer 4

although some psychologists are very critical of the theory of maternal deprivation, there is an interesting line of research that has provided support for the long term effects of maternal deprivation

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 although not other aspects of development

Question 5

there is a failure to distinguish between separation and deprivation, why is this a problem

Answer 5

Micheal Rutter (1981) claimed that, when Bowlby talked of deprivation, he was muddling two concepts together

Rutter drew a distinction between deprivation, which really means that LOSS of the primary attachment figure after the attachment has developed whereas privation is the FAILURE to form 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
- therefore we don’t know the affects of maternal deprivation