Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation

Theory of maternal deprivation

- Focused on the idea that the continual presence of care from a mother or mother-substitute is essential for psychological development of children (emotionally and intellectually). Bowlby (1953) stated that being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences

Separation versus deprivation

- Separation simply means 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. Brief separations, particularly where the child is with a substitute caregiver who can provide emotional care, are not significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation (causing harm)

The critical period

- The first two-and-a-half years of life is seen as this for psychological development. If a child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable substitute care and so deprived for an extended duration during this then psychological damage was inevitable. Believed to be a continuing risk up to the age of five

Effects on development: Intellectual development

- If children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would experience this to be delayed, 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 fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care

Effects on development: 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 cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions

Bowlby's research

- Bowlby's (1944) 44 thieves study examined the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation

Bowlby's research procedure

- Sample consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing. They were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (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 mothers. Sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally-disturbed young people

Bowlby's research findings

- Bowlby (1944) found that 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths and 12 of these had experienced prolonged separation from mothers in the first two years of their lives. Only five of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced separations. Only two participants in the control group of 44 had experienced long separations

Bowlby's research conclusion

- Prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy

Evaluation: Weaknesses (1)

- Poor quality of evidence it is based on. Bowlby's 44 thieves study is flawed because it was Bowlby himself who carried out the experiment. This left him open to bias because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy. Bowlby was also influenced by Goldfarb's (1943) research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages, which had problems of confounding variables because the children had experienced early trauma and institutional care, as well as prolonged separation from primary caregivers

- This means that Bowlby's original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had flaws and would not be taken seriously as evidence nowadays

Supporting animal research - separation from rats for one day can have larger impact on social development.

Evaluation: Weaknesses (2)

- There is confusion between different types of early experience. Rutter (1981) drew an important distinction between two types of early negative experience. Deprivation strictly refers to the loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has developed. In contrast, privation is the failure to form any attachment at all (may take place when children are brought up in institutional care). Rutter pointed out the long-term damage associated with deprivation is more likely to be the result of privation. So the children studied by Goldfarb may have been 'prived' rather than deprived

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

Evaluation: Weaknesses (3)

- Bowlby's idea of a critical period is flawed. For Bowlby, damage was inevitable if a child had not formed in an attachment in this critical period. However, there is evidence to suggest that in many cases good quality aftercare can prevent most or all of this damage. Koluchova (1976) reported the case of the Czech twins, who experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from the age of 18 months until they were seven years old. They received excellent care and by their teens had recovered fully from the emotional trauma

- This means that lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation. The critical period is therefore better seen as a sensitive period

Evaluation: Strengths

- Research has provided modest support for the idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects. Levy 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

- This means that, although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas