Bowlby theory of maternal deprivation Flashcards
was this Bowlby first theory?
yes came before monotropic
what is maternal deprivation
- separation between a caregiver and child—> consequences on emotional and intellectual development (continued presence of care from mother essential for normal development)
—> long term effects for prolonged separation from primary caregiver due to absence of emotional care
what did Bowlby state 1953
‘’mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health”
what is separation
child not being in presence of primary attachment figure (often temporary) e.g. school, daycare
—> often not significant for development as often get substitute caregiver who can nurture, comfort and emotionally care for you
what is deprivation?
- attachment has already been formed but is broken
- lack of emotional care, loss of an attachment figure= emotional and development harm
what is privation?
- when child never forms an attachment figure e.g. due to neglect etc - severe future consequences
what is critical period?
- first 2 and a half years of life is critical in emotional and psychological development —> prolonged separation from primary caregiver during this time and child deprived of mothers emotional care for extended duration leads to psychological damage
- for negative effects to occur must be no substitute caregiver who meets emotional needs of infant
- Bowlbg suggests psychological damaged continued till age of 5
what areas of development are impacted?
Intellectual and emotional
consequences on intellectual development
- Prolonged separation and deprivation can lead to delays in intellectual development (shown by low IQ)
what did Goldfarb demonstrate
- 1974 he studied children from orphanages and no maternal care and found that children that were not adopted had lower IQs than those who were fostered or adopted (therefore had emotional care)
consequences on emotional development
- limited emotional development = affectionless psychopaths (lack emotion, don’t feel guilt about actions, can’t form strong emotion towarfs others, lack affection) —> prevents ppl from developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality
(affectionless psychopaths can’t appreciate feelings for victims and lack remorse for actions)
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study 1944 aim
to examine if there’s a link between affectionless psychopaths and maternal deprivation
44 thieves study procedure
- studied 88 children from Child Guidance Clinic , London who were emotionally maladjusted
—> 44 control group, 44 were children accused of stealing (‘thieves’) - thieves were interviewed for signs of being affectionless psychopaths
- families were also interviewed to establish if thieves had prolonged periods of separation from their caregiver
- thieves data was compared to control grp
44 thieves study findings
-14/44=affectionless psychopaths
—> 12 of these had experienced prolonged separation from caregivers in first 2 years of rheir lives - 5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced separations
- control grp only 2 had experienced prolonged separations
—> concluded that prolonged separation was linked to affectionless psychopathy
eval point 1
- control group = children weren’t matched for age and confounding variables influence results
eval point 2
flawed evidence in 44 thieves study as Bowlby conducted the interviews and assessments for affectionless psychopathy—> could lead to bias in findings as he may expect certain children to be affectionless psychopaths—> study is distorted by investigator effects and conclusion is unethical
eval point 3
Bowlby by influenced findings of Goldelfarb on development of deprived children in orphanages in wartime
—> but study has confounding variables as children has ahead experienced early trauma and institutional care as well as prolonged separation from primary caregiver —> so Bowlby original source for evidence of maternal deprivation is flawed
BUT Levy et al 2003 found support for idea of maternal deprivation having long term effects who found baby rats separated from mother from as little as a day had permanent effects on social development
eval point 4
- conflicting evidence —> Lewis 1954 looked at 500 ppl (partial replication of 44 thieves study) and found no association between early separation and later psychopathy
BUT Gao et al found poor quality maternal care is assoctaed with high rates of psychopathy in adults —> partly supports Bowlby
eval point 5
Bowlby confused deprivation and privation
—> Ritter observed that affectionless psychopathy is more likely as a result of privation and not deprivation—> Childrrn of 44 thieves study has disrupted early lives and may have never formed attachments in the first place —> Bowlby overestimated the seriousness of effects of deprivation on a child’s development
eval point 6
critical period versus sensitive period
- Kolchova 1976 reported case of Czech twins who had been isolated 18 months - 7 years and recovered well
eval point 7 + 8
- relied on parents and children to recall early deprivation so may be inaccurate and memory bias
- ethical issues (sensitive topic and can emotionally disturb children and cause distress)
eval point 8+ 9
- Bowlby findings led to social change in how children are cared in hospitals or treated in separation from parents etc
- diagnosis of affectionless psychopathy is subjective and inconsistent and may be researcher bias
