Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation -A-Level Psychology

Maternal deprivation-the emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their mother.

Deprivation-to be deprived is to lose something.In relation to child development deprivation means the loss of emotional care from a primary caregiver.

Theory of maternal deprivation:

Bowlby proposed that continuous care and nurture from a mother is essential for normal psychological development of babies and toddlers.Prolonged separation from a mother causes serious consequences.

Separation vs deprivation:

Separation means the child is away from their primary attachment figure.This only becomes an issue for development if deprivation occurs(they lose an element of care).

The critical period:

Bowlby said the first 30 months of life are a critical period for psychological development.If a child was separated from their mother and substitute care and so deprived from her care for an extended period during the critical period then psychological damage was inevitable.

Effects on development:

Intellectual development-Bolwby believed that maternal deprivation would cause delayed intellectual development ,characterised by abnormally low IQ.This has been demonstrated in studies of adoption.

Emotional development-Bowlby believed that maternal deprivation would affect emotional development.Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others.This stops the person from forming normal relationships and is associated with criminality

Key Study:44 juvenile thieves

Procedure-Bowlby(1994) studied the case histories of his patients in the Child guidance clinic where he worked.The children in the clinic were emotionally maladjusted.He studied 88 children(44 had been caught stealing,the other 44 were a control group).The ‘thieves’ were interviewed for affectionless psychopathy (lacking emotions of affection,shame,responsibility).Their families were interviewed to see if the ‘thieves’ had prolonged separation at an early age from their mothers.

Findings-14/44 of the thieves were described having affectionless psychopathy.Of this 14,12 had prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of their lives.5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced prolonged separation.In the control group only 2/44 had experienced prolonged separation.It was concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.

Evaluation:

Poor evidence-Bolwby studied children orphaned during WW2 for evidence for maternal deprivation.These are flawed as evidence as war-orphans were traumatised and had poor after care therefore these factors may have been the causes of development difficulties rather than separation.Also, the design of the 44 thieves study had flaws as Bolwby himself carried out the assessments which means bias could have been present.

Real world application-Bolwby’s theory had an important impact on post war thinking about how children were looked after in hospitals.Before,Bolwby’s theory children were separated from parents when they spent time in the hospital and visiting was discouraged and even forbidden.Robertson(1952) filmed a two year old girl for the 8 day period she stayed at a hospital,she was seen to be frequently distressed and begs to go home.Bowlby’s and Robertson’s work led to a major social change in hospital care for children.

Counter evidence-Hilda Lewis(1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale,looking at 500 young people.In her sample a history of early prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships.This suggests that there may be other causes rather than maternal deprivation that affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation.

Failure to distinguish between deprivation and privation-Rutter (1981) claimed that Bowlby muddled two concepts together.Rutter drew a distinction between deprivation ,which really means the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed whereas privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place.Rutter suggested that the long term damage Bolwby associated with deprivation is actually the result of privation.