Bowlbys Theory Of Maternal Deprivation

Question 1

AO1 maternal deprevation

Answer 1

It is caused by prolonged separation from an attachment figure
According to Bowlby this deprivation during the critical period is particularly harmful and results in irreversible long term negative affects
- effects on intellectual development - children in orphanages have lower IQ
- effects on emotional development - inability yo show affection and concern for others

Question 2

What’s bowlbys thieves study

Answer 2

Examined links of affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation
Procedure - the sample consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing. They were interviewed to see if they had affectionless psychopathy. Their parents were also interviewed to see if they had maternal deprivation
A control group was made of mentally disturbed teenagers to see how maternal deprivation affected people who didn’t have those traits
Results - 14/44 were AP and only 12/44 had prolonged separation
Control - 2/44 - AP 0/44 had prolonged separation

Question 3

Evaluation points

Answer 3

Supporting Evidence: P- A strength of Bowly’s theory is that there is research support. E-Harlow’s study on rhesus monkeys could also be used to support Bowly’s theory. E-In his study, the monkeys suffered maternal deprivation as they were removed from their real mothers. As adults, these monkeys were abusive to their offspring, even killing them in some cases. L-The monkeys were also more aggressive and less sociable than other monkeys, thus supporting the view that maternal deprivation has a detrimental effect on development.
X
Contradictory Evidence: P-A weakness of the theory is that critics argue that findings from cross-cultural research clearly contradict the maternal deprivation hypothesis; E-Kagan studied the Guatemalan Indians and found that although the children experienced deprivation due to being kept in a windowless hut with little contact with their primary caregiver, they did not experience any social and intellectual impairment, demonstrating that maternal deprivation does not produce irreversible negative consequences.
E-Additionally, Lewis (1954) replicated Bowlby’s 44 thieves’ study with 500 young people and found that early deprivation did not predict future criminality or difficulty with relationships. L-This therefore suggests that other factors may influence the outcomes for children who suffer early deprivation.
X
Sensitive rather than critical period: P-A weakness of Bowly’s theory is that it may be a sensitive period instead of a critical period. E-Bowly used the term ‘critical period’ because he believed prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if it took place within that period. However, later research has shown some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes. For example, Koluchova, 1976, did a case study of Czech twin boys isolated from 18 months by being locked in
- a cupboard. Later they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to fully recover. E-This shows severe deprivation can have positive outcomes, provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare. L-Cases like this demonstrate that the period identified by Bowly may be a ‘sensitive’ one but cannot be critical.
Deprivation or privation: P-Another weakness of Bowly’s theory is that it has been criticised for mixing up the concept of deprivation with privation. E- Deprivation refers to the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed. On the other hand, privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place. E- Therefore, many of the children in the 44 thieves’ study may have never formed a strong attachment, suggesting privation rather than deprivation. L - This reduces the validity of Bowlby’s theory as the severe long-term damage
Bowlby associated with deprivation is more likely to be the result of privation.