bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation

• Maternal deprivation

  Is the emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their CG, Bowlby proposed that continuous care from CG is essential for normal psychological development and the prolonged separation between the baby and CG causes both intellectual and emotional damage and delay.
• Separation vs deprivation

  Separation means the child is not in the presence of PAF. it only becomes a problem when the separation is prolonged and the baby is deprived of emotional care. Brief separation when the child is with a substitute CG who can provide emotional care and it is not significant in development  but extended separation can lead to deprivation causing harm.
• Critical period

  First 2 years of life are the critical period for psychological development. If the child is separated from mother in absence of suitable care and deprived of emotional care for extended duration during a critical period then psychological damage is inevitable and there is a continuous risk up until the age of 8.   
• Effects of development

  Intellectual effects 

  If children are deprived of maternal care during the critical period they would experience delayed intellectual development such as low IQ. It has been demonstrated in studies of adoption by Goldfarb 1947 lower IQ children remained in institutions as opposed to those who were adopted and received emotional care  

  Emotional effects

  Identified affectionless psychopathy as inability to experience guilt and remorse for their negative attitudes preventing them to have fulfilling relationships and is associated with criminality
• Bowlby’s research

  Procedure

  44 thieves study. Bowlby 44 thieves and they were interviewed and assessed for AP. Families of these thieves and asked if they were maternally deprived during 2 to 5yrs old. There was also a control group that was described as emotionally disturbed, they went through the same process.

  Findings

  44 thieves group 14/44 had affectionless psychopathy and 12/14 had been maternally deprived. The remaining 30/44 5 had experienced maternal deprivation. Control group 2 had experienced affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.
• Limitation idea of critical period. Damage inevitable if child had not formed attachment in the first 2 yrs of life. But evidence to suggest good quality aftercare can prevent damage. Koluchova 1976 case Czech twins experienced physical and emotional abuse from 18 months to 7 years old. Although damaged emotionally from experience they received excellent care and by teens fully recovered. Means lasting harm isn't inevitable even in cases of severe privation. Critical period best scenes as a sensitive period.
• Limitation confusion between different types of early experience. Rutter 1981 drew an important distinction between 2 types of early negative experience. Deprivation loss of PAF after attachment developed but privation no attachment was ever formed. Rutter pointed out severe long term damage Bowlby associated deprivation likely be privation so children studied by Goldfarb prived not deprived, many of 44 thieves early lives disrupted and never formed strong attachments. Means Bowlby overestimated seriousness effects deprivation children's development.
• Limitation poor quality of evidence theory is based on. Bowlby 44 thieves study flawed as open to bias as he interviewed and assessed the pps for AP, and knew that they would show signs. He also influences the findings of Goldfarb 1943 research development deprived children orphanage, study confounding variables as children experienced early trauma and institutional care. Means Bowlby evidence MD serious flaws not suitable for present day.
• But recent research Levy 2003 separated baby rats from mothers and permanently damaged social development. Means even though relied on flawed evidence to support theory MD other sources evidence for his ideas.