Outline and evaluate Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation Flashcards
outline
Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis argues that long-term or permanent emotional separation from the primary attachment figure during the critical period (the first 2½ years of life) causes a range of developmental issues, unless a suitable “mother substitute” is available.
This is due to the formation of a negative internal working model, a partly conscious, partly unconscious set of rules and expectations about attachments and relationships, which is shaped by their deprivation.
It is argued that deprivation leads to the following cognitive, emotional and social developmental issues:
poor cognitive development (delayed intellectual development, low IQ and problems with concentration),
poor emotional development (affectionless psychopathy which is an inability to show normal affection or responsibility for one’s actions, temper tantrums and disinhibited attachment which is when children demonstrate inappropriate behaviour towards stranger),
poor social development (quasi-autistic behaviour where children struggle comprehending the meaning of social contexts, difficulty interacting with peers and forming close relationships and an increased chance of criminal behaviour),
and poor adult relationships (difficulties in forming and maintaining adult relationships and poor parenting skills – continuity hypothesis).
strength 1
A strength of the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis is that it has supporting evidence from
Bowlby (1944) who studied 88 children from a care home in London, 44 of whom were identified as ‘thieves’ and found that long-term separation from the primary attachment figure during the critical period causes poor cognitive, emotional and social development.
This suggests that maternal deprivation (permanent separation from a primary attachment figure) does cause poor cognitive development, including low IQ.
limit 1
A limitation of the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis is that it has convincing research against it from
Lewis (1954), who replicated Bowlby’s 44 Thieves study on a larger scale (with 500 children) and found that prolonged emotional separation from the primary attachment figure did NOT predict criminality or difficulties forming close relationships.
This contradicts the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis by suggesting that separation from a primary attachment figure does NOT necessarily cause poor emotional or social development.
strength 2
A strength of Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis is that it has practical applications because it has led to real world benefit.
This is because the theory has been used to change practices in a range of care settings.
For example, hospital care has changed on paediatric wards since Bowlby’s research.
In the past, children may have been separated from their primary attachment figure during their stay in hospital, but now parents are encouraged to spend as much time as possible with their young children, often staying on site in special accommodation to avoid maternal deprivation.
Therefore, it is clear that Bowlby’s work has led to major social change in the way that we care for children.
limit 2
A further limitation of the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis is that Bowlby did not distinguish between deprivation and privation.
Rutter (1976) claimed that when Bowlby talked about deprivation, he was muddling two concepts together.
Rutter made a distinction between deprivation (loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has developed) and privation (failure to form an attachment).
Many of the 44 thieves in Bowlby’s study had moved from home to home in childhood and so may never have formed an attachment in the first place, and it could be this failure to form an attachment that caused the affectionless psychopathy shown.
Rutter argues that this severe long-term damage that Bowlby associated with deprivation is more likely to be the result of privation.
