Bowlby's Theory of
Maternal Deprivation

maternal deprivation hypothesis:

  • breaking the maternal bond with the child during early years of its life is likely to have serious effects on its intellectual, social & emotional development


  • Bowlby also claimed that many of these negative effects of maternal deprivation are permanent & irreversible

separation vs deprivation

  • separation : child isn't in the presence of the primary attachment figure
    • only becomes an issue for development if child is deprived of emotional care
  • brief separations (particularly if child is with a substitute caregiver) is not significant for development
  • however, extended separations can lead to deprivation, which by definition causes harm

critical period

  • first 2 & 1/2 years of life = critical period for psychological development
  • if child is separated from mother in absence of suitable substitute care & so deprived of emotional care - psychological damage was inevitable

Effects on development

intellectual development

  • Bowlby believed if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would experience 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 & 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 developing fulfilling relationships & is associated with criminality
  • affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate feelings of victims & so lack remorse for their actions

Key Study - 44 Thieves Study

  • study in maternal deprivation & juvenile delinquency 1946
  • examined link between affectionless psychopathy & maternal deprivation

Procedure

  • 44 criminal teens accused of stealing
  • all thieves interviews for signs of affectionless psychopathy
    • characterised as a lack of affection, lack of guilt about their actions & lack of empathy for their victims
  • families also interviewed in order to establish whether the thieves had prolonged early separations from their mothers
  • sample cmpared to control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally-disturbed young people
    Findings
  • 14 of 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths & 12 of these had experiences prolonged separation from their mothers in first 2 years if life
  • only 5 of remaining 30 thieves had experienced separations
  • only 2 participants in control group had experienced long separations
    Conclusions
  • prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopaths

EVALUATION

!LIMITATION!

flawed evidence

  • poor quality evidence its based on
  • 44 thieves study flawed as Bowlby carried out both family interviews & assessments for affectionless psychopathy
    • open to bias - knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy
  • means Bowlby's original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws & would not be taken seriously as evidence nowadays

!LIMITATION!

HOWEVER

  • new line of research provided some modest support for idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects
  • Levy et al (2003) showed that separating baby rats from their mother for a little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development
  • means although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support theory of maternal deprivation, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas

deprivation & privation

  • confusion between different types of early experiences
  • Rutter (1981) drew an important distinction between 2 types of early negative experience
  • deprivation strictly refers to loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has developed
  • privation is failure to form any attachment in the first place
    • takes place when child are brought up in institutional care
  • Rutter pointed out that severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is more likely to be result of privation instead
  • means Bowlby may have overestimated seriousness of effects of deprivation in children's devlopment

!LIMITATION!

critical vs sensitive period

  • Bowlby's idea of critical period
  • for Bowlby, damage was inevitable if a child had not formed an attachment in 1st 2 & 1/2 years of life
    • this is critical period
  • however - evidence suggests that in many cases good quality after care can prevent most/all of this damage
    • Koluchova (1976) reported case of Czech twins
    • twins experience very severe physical & emotional abuse from age of 18 months - 7 years
    • although they were severely damaged emotionally by their experience, they received excellent care & by their teens they had recovered fully
  • means lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation
  • 'Critical period therefore better seen as a sensitive period'