Maternal deprivation theory

• How can research into maternal deprivation be seen as flawed evidence?

  • Bowlby carried out the interviews himself - could be biased as he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy as he knew who experienced deprivation
  • Goldfarb's study - children experienced early trauma and institutional care as well as maternal deprivation, serving as confounding variables
  • Shows Bowlby's sources of evidence had serious flaws
• What support is there for the long-term effects of maternal deprivation?

  • Levy et al. found that separating baby rats from their mothers for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development
  • Shows there are other sources of evidence for Bowlby's ideas
• Why was Bowlby confused about deprivation and privation?

  • Rutter (1981) found that: deprivation refers to the loss of a primary attachment figure after the attachment has developed
  • Whereas privation is the failure to form an attachment in the first place like for children who grew up in institutional care
  • Damage that Bowlby and Goldfarb associated with maternal deprivation may actually be a result of privation
  • Shows overestimation of deprivation
• What was Bowlby's confusion with critical periods and sensitive periods?

  • Bowlby claimed that if a child did not form an attachment during its' critical period then damage was inevitable
  • Koluchova's Czech twins: twins experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from 18 months to 7 years old
  • Received excellent care as teens and recovered fully
  • Shows lasting harm is not inevitable, even in severe cases, showing critical may be better described as sensitive