Maternal Deprivation

Question 1

Outline the theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 1

-Developed in 1951 by Bowlby
-Earlier theory = continual presence of nurture from mum/sub is essential for normal psychological development
-Bowlby famously said ‘mother-love in infancy & childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins & proteins to physical health’
-Separation from mum in early childhood has serious consequences

Question 2

Outline the difference between separation & deprivation

Answer 2

Separation = child isn’t in presence of primary attachment figure

Deprivation = child loses an element of their care

Brief separation are fine, but extended separations can lead to deprivation, causing harm

Question 3

Outline the critical period

Answer 3

-Bowlby saw first 30 months of life as critical period for psychological development
-If child separated from mum in absence of suitable sub care & deprived of her emotional care for extended period of time then psychological damage inevitable

Question 4

Outline the maternal deprivation’s effects on development

Answer 4

Intellectual: Mental retardation (low IQ)
Demonstrated by Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in kids who’d stay in institutions compared to fostered kids, thus higher level of emotional care

Emotional development: Affectionless psychopathy
Inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others, preventing person developing normal relationships
Associated with criminality as they can’t appreciate feelings of victims, so lack remorse

Question 5

Outline the procedure of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

Answer 5

-Sample consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
-All thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy: lack of guilt & empathy
-Families interviewed to find whether thieves had prolonged early separation from mums
-Control group of non-criminals but emotionally disturbed young people was set up to see how often maternal deprivation occurred in kids who weren’t thieves

Question 6

Outline the findings of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

Answer 6

-Found 14/44 were affectionless psychopaths
-Of 14, 12 experienced prolonged separation from mums in first 2 years
-Only 5 of remaining thieves experienced separations

-Of control group, only 2/44 experienced prolonged separations

It was concluded prolonged separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy

Question 7

Evaluate Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 7

LIMITATION - Evidence may be poor (included studies of war orphans)
E.g. - War-orphans were traumatised & had poor after-care, these factors may have been causes of developmental difficulties not separation. Similarly, kids growing up in poor quality institutions deprived of may aspects of care, not just maternal.
Ex. - Major design flaws, like bias as Bowlby himself carried out assessments for affectionless psychopathy & family interviews. He knew what he wanted to find.

LIMITATION - Counter evidence
E.g. - Lewis (1954) partially replicated 44 thieves on larger scale, with 500 young people. In her sample history of early prolonged separation didn’t predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships
Ex. - Goes against Bowlby’s central findings & suggests other factors affect outcome of deprivation

LIMITATION - Critical period more of a sensitive period
E.g. - Bowlby used ‘critical period’ as he thought damage was inevitable if separation occurred in this time, this isn’t true. Some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes if kid has good after-care.
Ex. - Koluchova (1976) reported twin boys from Czech isolated in cupboard from 18 months to 7 years. They were then looked after by two loving adults & recovered fully. Cases like this show this period may be ‘sensitive’ but not critical.