Bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation

Bowlby in 1951 made the theory of

Maternal deprivation

Continous emotional (maternal) care is necessary for

Normal emotional and intellectual development

Seperation from mother leads to

Maternal deprivation

What is seperation

Child not being physically in the presence of the primary attachment figure

Deprivation is

Losing emotional care as a result of the separation

How long is the critical period

2 and a half years

Continuing risk to 5

Goldfarb found

Lower IQ in children from institutions compared to fostered children

Deprived of maternal care leads to mental retardation

Lack of emotional care leads to affectionless psychopathy

The inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others

Prevents a person developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality

44 thieves study by

Bowlby 1944

Procedure

44 teenagers accused of stealing

All ‘thieves‘ were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (lack of affection, guilt and empathy)

Famlies were interviewed for any prolonged seperations from mothers

Findings

14 of the 44 were described as affectionless psychopaths

12 of these experienced prolonged seperation

Only 5 of the others had experienced seperations

Suggests prolonged early seperations cause affectionless psychopathy

One limitation is that sources of evidence are flawed

44 thieves was biased - bowlby himself assessed both deprivation and psychopathy knowing what he hoped to find

Goldfarbs study of wartime orphans was flawed, he used traumatised participants who lacked good aftercare, this introduced confounding variables

Bowlby had no solid evidence on which to base his theory of maternal deprivation

Another limitation is bowlby confused deprivation and privation

Rutter made the distinction between deprivation and privation (failure to form an attachment), privation has more severe effects

Childre bowlby studied and based his ideas on may have been proved rather than deprived

Means bowlby probably exaggerated the effects of deprivation on development

One strength is there is some new evidence to support the theory

Levy et al found that seperating baby rats for one day had permanent effects on their social development

A further limitation is the critical period is more of a sensitive period

Koluchova conducted a case study of two twin boys locked in a cupboard from age 18 months

Later they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to fully recover

Shows severe deprivation can have positive outcomes as long as child has a some social interaction and good aftercare

Period may be sensitive but cannot be critical