BOWLBY’S THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION
MATERNAL DEPRIVATION → the emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their ‘mother’
Bowlby’s proposed that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development, and that prolonged separation can cause serious damage to emotional and intellectual development
SEPARATION → the child not being in the presence of their primary attachment figure
DEPRIVATION → when the child loses an element of the primary attachment figure’s care
Critical Period for psychological development = first 2.5 years
If a child is deprived of emotional care for an extended period of time from the ‘mother’, Bowlby believed that psychological damage was inevitable
He also believed that this would be a continuing risk up to the age of 5
~EFFECTS ON DEVELOPMENT~
Intellectual Development
Deprived of maternal care for too long leads to them having delayed intellectual development (abnormally low IQ)
Goldfarb (1974) found lower IQ’s in children who remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered
Emotional Development
Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathology as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others
This prevents the development of normal relationships, and is associated with criminality
BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES
44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathology (OF THE THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION by a lack of affection and guilt)
Their families were interviewed to establish whether they had prolonged, early separations from their mothers
Control group of non-criminal, emotionally disturbed, young people were analysed to see how often maternal deprivation occurred in children who were not thieves
14/44 thieves identified as affectionless psychopaths. Of this 14, 12 experienced prolonged separation.
In the control group, 2/44 had experienced long separations
Bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathology
EVALUATION
Conflicting Evidence
→ FLAWED EVIDENCE
One limitation of the theory of maternal deprivation is the poor quality of the evidence it is based on.
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study is flawed because Bowlby himself carried out both the family interviews, and the assessments for affectionless psychopathology.
This left him open to bias because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathology.
This means that Bowlby’s original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws, and would not be taken seriously as evidence nowadays.
However, a new line of research provided some support for the idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects.
Psychologists showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development.
This means that, although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support the theory of maternal deprivation, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas.
→ DEPRIVATION AND PRIVATION
Another limitation of Bowlby‘s theory of maternal theory is his confusion between different types of early experience.
Deprivation strictly refers to the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed. On the other hand, privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place.
Psychologists point out that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation. Many of the children in the 44 thieves study had disrupted early lives and never formed strong attachments.
This means that Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in a child’s development.
→ CRITICAL VS SENSITIVE PERIODS
Another limitation is Bowlby’s idea of a critical period.
For Bowlby, damage was inevitable if a child had not formed an attachment in the first 2.5 years of life. Hence this is a critical period.
However, there is evidence to suggest that in many cases good quality aftercare can prevent this damage. For example, the Czech twins experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from the age of 18 months up until they were 7 years 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 is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation. The ‘critical period’ is therefore better seen as a ‘sensitive period.’
MATERNAL DEPRIVATION → the emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their ‘mother’
Bowlby’s proposed that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development, and that prolonged separation can cause serious damage to emotional and intellectual development
SEPARATION → the child not being in the presence of their primary attachment figure
DEPRIVATION → when the child loses an element of the primary attachment figure’s care
Critical Period for psychological development = first 2.5 years
If a child is deprived of emotional care for an extended period of time from the ‘mother’, Bowlby believed that psychological damage was inevitable
He also believed that this would be a continuing risk up to the age of 5
~EFFECTS ON DEVELOPMENT~
Intellectual Development
Deprived of maternal care for too long leads to them having delayed intellectual development (abnormally low IQ)
Goldfarb (1974) found lower IQ’s in children who remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered
Emotional Development
Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathology as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others
This prevents the development of normal relationships, and is associated with criminality
BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES
44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathology (OF THE THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION by a lack of affection and guilt)
Their families were interviewed to establish whether they had prolonged, early separations from their mothers
Control group of non-criminal, emotionally disturbed, young people were analysed to see how often maternal deprivation occurred in children who were not thieves
14/44 thieves identified as affectionless psychopaths. Of this 14, 12 experienced prolonged separation.
In the control group, 2/44 had experienced long separations
Bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathology
EVALUATION
Conflicting Evidence
→ FLAWED EVIDENCE
One limitation of the theory of maternal deprivation is the poor quality of the evidence it is based on.
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study is flawed because Bowlby himself carried out both the family interviews, and the assessments for affectionless psychopathology.
This left him open to bias because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathology.
This means that Bowlby’s original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws, and would not be taken seriously as evidence nowadays.
However, a new line of research provided some support for the idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects.
Psychologists showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development.
This means that, although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support the theory of maternal deprivation, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas.
→ DEPRIVATION AND PRIVATION
Another limitation of Bowlby‘s theory of maternal theory is his confusion between different types of early experience.
Deprivation strictly refers to the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed. On the other hand, privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place.
Psychologists point out that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation. Many of the children in the 44 thieves study had disrupted early lives and never formed strong attachments.
This means that Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in a child’s development.
→ CRITICAL VS SENSITIVE PERIODS
Another limitation is Bowlby’s idea of a critical period.
For Bowlby, damage was inevitable if a child had not formed an attachment in the first 2.5 years of life. Hence this is a critical period.
However, there is evidence to suggest that in many cases good quality aftercare can prevent this damage. For example, the Czech twins experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from the age of 18 months up until they were 7 years 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 is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation. The ‘critical period’ is therefore better seen as a ‘sensitive period.’
