Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation

theory of maternal deprivation

the continual presence of care from a mother or mother-substitute is essential for normal psychological development of babies and toddlers, both emotionally and intellectually.

Being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences (maternal deprivation).

separation vs deprivation

separation → the child not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure. This only becomes a problem if the child becomes deprived of emotional care (which can happen even if a mother is present and, say, depressed).

Brief separations, particularly where the child is with a substitute caregiver who can provide emotional care, aren’t significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation, which by definition causes harm.

Bowlby - the critical period

first two-and-a-half yrs of life as a critical period for psychological development.

if a child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable substitute care and so deprived of her emotional care for an extended duration during this critical period then psychological damage was inevitable. He also believed there was a continuing risk up to the age of 5.

effects on development

intellectual development → if deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period, delayed intellectual development, characterised by abnormally low IQ. This has been demonstrated in studies of adoption. e.g. Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care.

emotional development → Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others. This prevents a person developing fulfilling relationships and is associated with criminality. Affectionless psychopaths can’t appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions.

Bowlby’s (1944) research

aim: to investigate the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.

procedure: sample of 44 criminal teens accused of stealing. All 'thieves' were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy: characterised as a lack of affection, lack of guilt about their actions and lack of empathy for their victims. Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the 'thieves' had prolonged early separations from their mothers. The sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally-disturbed young people.

Findings: 14/44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths and 12 of these had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2yrs of their lives. In contrast only 5 of the remaining 30 'thieves' had experienced separations. Only 2 pps in the control group had experienced long separations. Bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.

AO3 - evaluations of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

limitation: flawed evidence

limitation: Bowlby's confusion between deprivation and privation

limitation: critical vs sensitive periods

AO3 - limitation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation: flawed evidence

Bowlby carried out both the family interviews and the assessments for affectionless psychopathy in his 44 thieves study. open to bias cuz he knew in advance which teens he expected to show signs of psychopathy. Other sources of evidence were equally flawed. e.g. Bowlby was also influenced by the findings of Goldfarb's (1943) research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages. This study has problems of confounding variables cuz the children in Goldfarb's study had experienced early trauma and institutional care as well as prolonged separation from their primary caregivers. wouldn’t be taken seriously as evidence nowadays.

COUNTER: A new line of research has provided some modest support for the idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects. Lévy et al. (2003) showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development though not other aspects of development. although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support the theory of maternal deprivation, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas.

AO3 - limitation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation: Bowlby's confusion between deprivation and privation

Rutter (1981) drew a distinction between deprivation and privation. deprivation → the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed. privation → the failure to form any attachment in the first place - this may take place when children are brought up in institutional care. Rutter pointed out that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation. So the children studied by Goldfarb may actually have been 'prived' rather than deprived.

Similarly, many of the children in the 44 thieves study had disrupted early lives (e.g. spells in hospital) and may never have formed strong attachments.

This means that Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in children's development.

AO3 - limitation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation: critical vs sensitive periods

for Bowlby, damage was inevitable if a child hadn’t formed an attachment in the first 2½ yrs of life. Hence this is a critical period. but, there’s evidence to suggest that in many cases good quality aftercare can prevent most or all of this damage. e.g. Koluchová (1976) reported the case of the Czech Twins. The twins experienced very severe physical and emotional abuse from the age of 18 months up until they were 7yrs old. Although they were severely damaged emotionally by their experience they received excellent care and by their teens they had recovered fully.

This means that lasting harm isn’t inevitable even in cases of severe privation. The 'critical period' is thus better seen as a ‘sensitive period’.