Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation

Maternal deprivation

Bowlby’s theory that prolonged separation from the mother causes long-term developmental damage.

Deprivation definition

Loss of emotional care due to extended or frequent separation from the primary attachment figure.

Separation definition

Being away from the primary caregiver without loss of emotional care.

Privation definition

Never forming an attachment in the first place.

Bowlby’s assumption

Mother–child bond essential for healthy psychological development.

Critical period (maternal deprivation)

The first 30 months of life are essential for attachment and development.

Critical period consequence

If attachment is disrupted during this period, damage is irreversible.

Intellectual development impact

Deprivation leads to low IQ and cognitive impairment.

Goldfarb findings

Institutionalised children who lacked emotional care had significantly lower IQ.

Emotional development impact

Deprivation leads to affectionless psychopathy.

Affectionless psychopathy

Inability to feel guilt or empathy; associated with criminal behaviour.

44 Thieves study

Bowlby investigated whether maternal deprivation was linked to delinquency.

44 Thieves procedure

44 juvenile thieves compared to 44 non-criminal emotionally disturbed adolescents.

Affectionless thieves

14 of the 44 thieves were classified as affectionless psychopaths.

Early separation finding

12 of the 14 affectionless psychopaths experienced prolonged maternal separation.

Control group finding

Only 2 of the control group had experienced separation.

44 Thieves conclusion

Prolonged early deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy and delinquency.

Cause and effect issue

Correlation does not prove deprivation caused delinquency.

Strength: real-world implications

Changed childcare practices; led to improved hospital visiting policies.

Strength: supported by animal studies

Harlow's monkeys deprived of mothers displayed emotional damage.

Limitation: biased researcher

Bowlby diagnosed children himself; potential investigator bias.

Limitation: retrospective data

Children and parents may have given inaccurate recall in 44 Thieves study.

Limitation: deprivation vs privation

Rutter argued Bowlby confused deprivation with privation.

Rutter criticism

Negative outcomes more linked to privation (lack of attachment), not separation.

Romanian orphan evidence

Severe damage mainly caused by institutional privation, not short separations.

Short separations finding

Short-term separations (nursery, working parents) rarely cause long-term harm.

Individual differences

Not all children react the same; some more resilient than others.

Cultural differences

Childcare norms differ; some cultures use multiple caregivers successfully.

Sensitive period modern view

Attachment damage possible after 30 months but not irreversible.

Deprivation long-term effects

Depression, low IQ, delinquency, emotional maladjustment.

Emotional security impact

Deprivation disrupts ability to form stable relationships later in life.

Attachment disruption

Causes anxiety, insecurity, and difficulty regulating emotions.

Reversibility of deprivation

High-quality later care can improve outcomes in some cases.

Institutional care concern

Under-stimulated environments mimic effects of deprivation.

Separation anxiety

Short separations may temporarily increase anxiety but do not always cause long-term damage.

Monotropy link

Maternal deprivation emphasises importance of first attachment bond.

Bond disruption severity

Depends on duration, frequency, and substitute caregiver quality.

Hospitalism

Risk of deprivation for children hospitalised for long periods with restricted visitation.

Daycare evidence

High-quality daycare does not cause deprivation effects.

Inconsistent evidence

Some deprived children recover fully; Bowlby’s theory may overstate permanence of damage.