Theory Of Maternal Depivation A03

Question 1

Limitation - evidence gathered may be poor

Answer 1

• Bowlby drew on a number of sources of evidence for maternal deprivation - studies of children orphaned during the Second World War, those growing up in poor quality orphanages, and of course his 44 thieves study.
• However, these are all flawed as evidence. War-orphans were traumatised and often had poor after-care, therefore these factors might have been the causes of later developmental difficulties rather than separation.
• Similarly, children growing up from birth in poor quality institutions were deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal care.
• the 44 thieves study had some major design flaws, most importantly bias; Bowlby himself carried out the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews, knowing what he hoped to find.

Question 2

Limitation - counter evidence

Answer 2

• Not all research has supported Bowlby’s findings.
• For example, Hilda Lewis (1954) partially 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 3

Limitation - critical period is actually more of a sensitive period.

Answer 3

• Bowlby used the term ‘critical period’ because he believed that prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if it took place within that period.
• However, later research has shown that damage is not inevitable. Some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare.
• For example, Jarmila Koluchová (1976) reported the case of twin boys who were isolated at the age of 18 months until they were seven years old (their step-mother kept them locked in a cupboard).
• Subsequently they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully. Cases like this show that the period identified by Bowlby may be a ‘sensitive’ one but it cannot be critical.