Bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation

• When was Bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation

  1951
• continued emotional care is essential

  Continuous emotional (maternal) care from a mother or mother-substitute is necessary for normal emotional and intellectual developement
• separation may lead to maternal deprivation


  bowlby believed that mother love in infancy is ‘as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health’
• separation is different from deprivation

  • separation means the child not being physically in the presence of the primary attachment figure
  • deprivation means losing emotional care as a result of the separation.
  • deprivation can be avoided if alternative emotional care is offered, thus separation doesnt always cause deprivation
• critical period of 2.5 years


  if a child is separated from their mother (without substitute emotional care) for an extended time during the first 2.5 years, then psychological damage is inevitable. there is a continuing risk up to the age of 5
• intellectual Developement: lower IQ


  if a child is deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period this may lead to mental retardation. Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ’s in children from institutions compared to fostered children
• emotional Developement: affectionless psychopathy


  lack of emotional care may also lead to affectionless psychopathy - the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others. this prevents the person developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality.
• what was bowlbys 1944 study

  44 thieves study
• procedure of the 44 thieves study

  • sample - 44 delinquent teenagers accused of stealing
  • all thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy: characterised by a lack of affection, guilt and empathy
  • families were also interviewed to establish any prolonged separations from mothers
• findings of the 44 thieves study

  • 14 of the 44 could be described as affectionless psychopaths - 12 of these had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of their lives
  • in contrast only 5 of the remaining 30 theirves had experienced separations
• conclusion of the 44 thieves study

  prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy
• one limitation is that sources of evidence for maternal deprivation are flawed

  the 44 thieves study is flawed because it was open to bias - bowlby himself assessed both deprivation and psychopathy, knowing what he hoped to find. Also, Goldfarb’s (1943) study of wartime orphans is flawed because he used traumatised participants who lacked good aftercare. This introduced confounding variables. This means that Bowlby originally had no solid evidence on which to base his theory maternal deprivation.
• One limitation is that sources of evidence for maternal deprivation are flawed: counterpoint

  There is some evidence frmo newer studies to support the theory of material deprivation. For example Levy (2003) found that separating baby rats for one day had a permanent effect on their social Developement. This means that there is now some evidence for the theory of maternal deprivation after all
• another limitation is Bowlby confused deprivation and privation

  Rutter (1981) made the distinction between deprivation (separation from an attachment figure) and privation (failure to form an attachment) - privation has more serious effects. this children bowlby studied (e.g. the 44 thieves) and others he based his ideas on (e.g. Goldfarbs wartime orphans) may have been prived rather than deprived. this means that bowlby probably exaggerated the effects of deprivation on Developement.
• a further limitation is the critical period is more of a sensitive period

  Koluchova (1976) conducted a case study of Czech twin boys isolated from 18 months old (locked in a cupboard). later they were looked after by 2 loving adults and appeared to recover fully. this shows that severe deprivation can have positive outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare. this means that the period identified by bowlby may be a ‘sensitive’ one but it cannot be critical