maternal deprivation

• Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory (introduction)

  • Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation emphasises the importance of a continuous relationship between a child and their primary caregiver for healthy emotional and psychological development
  • Being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences (maternal deprivation)
• Separation vs. deprivation (AO1)

  • there is an essential difference between separation and deprivation.
  • separation simply means the primary attachment figure is not present around the child
  • this only becomes a problem if the child becomes deprived of emotional care, and if it is regular, it can be very harmful
• What is the critical period for psychological development?

  • the first two and a half years of life
• What are the effects of deprivation on development?

  • intellectual development - Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period, they would experience delayed intellectual development / low IQ
  • emotional development - Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others, preventing them from developing relationships
• Bowlby's 44 Thieves Study (AO1)

  • Bowlby studied 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
  • all 'thieves' were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy
  • their families were also interviewed to establish whether the 'thieves' had prolonged early separation from their mothers in the first two and a half years of their life
  • the sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed teenagers
  • they found that 14 were described as affectionless psychopaths, and 12 of them had experienced prolonged separation
• One limitation (AO3)

  • theory of maternal deprivation is based on poor-quality evidence
  • Bowlby's 44 thieves study is flawed because it was Bowlby himself who carried out the interviews for affectionless psychopathy
  • this left him open to bias because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy
  • therefore, this means that we can't generalise his findings to the wider population as it is based on highly flawed evidence