Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

What is maternal deprivation?

The emotional + intellectual consequences of separation between child and mother

How did Bowlby see care from a mother?

Crucial for normal psychological development - as important as ‘proteins for physical health’ (Bowlby 1953)

What is the critical period?

The first 2 ½ years in which can cause future psychological damage if deprived from mother’s emotional care

How can intellectual development be affected if maternal deprivation occurs?

Delayed, low IQ

How does Goldfarb (1947) support Bowlby’s theory on intellectual development?

• Studied 30 orphaned children, half of them fostered, half of them in an orphanage.

• Fostered group average IQ = 96

• Orphanage group average IQ = 68

How can emotional development be affected if maternal deprivation occurs?

They would develop affectionless psychopathy - inability to experience guilt, strong feelings towards others and difficulty in developing fulfilling relationships

What was Bowlby’s procedure in his 44 thieves study?

• 44 criminal teenagers interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy.

• Families also interviews to establish whether thieves had prolonged early separations from their mothers.

• Sample compared to a control group of 44 emotionally disturbed young people who were not criminals.

What were Bowlby’s findings in his 44 thieves study?

• 14/44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths, 12/14 had experienced prolonged separation.

• Only 5 of the other 30 had experienced prolonged separation.

• Only 2/44 of controlled group had experienced prolonged separation.

What flaws did the findings of the 44 thieve study have?

• Bowlby himself carried it out - potential bias as he knew in advance which teenagers were expected to show signs of affectionless psychopathy.

• Bowlby was also influenced by Goldfarb’s research, which contained confounding variables as the children had experienced early trauma, institutional care and prolonged separation.

What supporting research (other than 44 thieves) is there for Bowlby’s theory?

Levy et al. (2003) found that separating baby rats from their mothers for as little as a dat had a permanent effect on their social development.

How may Bowlby have mixed up deprivation and privation?

• Rutter (1981) drew important distinction between the two:

• Deprivation = loss of primary attachment figure after attachment developed

• Privation = failure to form any attachment in the first place.

• Rutter believed long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation was actually privation.

Why may the critical period may actually be a sensitive period?

• Bowlby saw damage was inevitable if a child did not form attachment in critical period.

• However there is evidence to show good quality aftercare can prevent the damage.

• Koluchova (1976)’s Czech Twins experienced severe abuse from 2-7. They were severely emotionally damaged but received excellent care, and made a full recovery by teens.

• Shows lasting harm is not always inevitable

• Critical period better seen as a sensitive period

What conflicting evidence is there for the 44 thieves study?

• Lewis (1954) looked at 500 young people and found no association between early separation and later psychopathy.

• Gao et al. (2010) found poor quality maternal care was associated with high rates of psychopathy in adults