7. Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation

• Theory of maternal deprivation - AO1

  - Bowlby (1951)

  the continued deprivation of maternal care will lead to intellectual and mental problems
• Separation vs deprivation


  - Separation is simply when they are not in the presence of the primary caregiver - this only becomes an issue when the child is deprived and loses an element of her care. - Extended separations can lead to deprivation.
• The critical period


  - First two and a half years is the critical period for psychological development.

  - Child in absence of care mother and deprived of emotional care then there will be inevitable psychological damage - risk up to 5.
• Intellectual development - AO1

  - Delayed intellectual development characterized as abnormally low IQ.

  - Goldfarb found that lower iQ's were more common in children who were fostered
• Emotional development - AO1

  - Deprivation can leads to affectionless psychopathy.

  - A child who is unable to experience guilt and strong emotion towards others.
• Flawed evidence


  - Based on poor quality evidence because bowlby himself carried out the experiment.

  - He carried out the family interviews and the assessment which left him open to bias.

  - Also based his evidence on Goldford's study on deprived children in wartime orphanages.

  - Study had problems with confounding variables as children suffered from early trauma and institutional care.
• Deprivation VS privation


  - Confusion between different types of early experiences.

  - Rutter drew an important distinction between the two

  - Deprivation - loss of PAF after attachment had developed

  - Privation - Failure to form an attachment.

  - Rutterfelt Bowly pointed out Privation rather than deprivation .

  - Children in his 44 thieves study and Goldfarb's study may have suffered from privation.
• Conflicting evidence


  Most attempts to replicate 44 thieves study have failed to produce the same results.

  - Lewis (1954) - looked at 500 young people and found association between early separation and later psychopathy.
• Theory of maternal deprivation - AO1

  - Bowlby (1951)

  the continued deprivation of maternal care will lead to intellectual and mental problems
• Separation vs deprivation


  - Separation is simply when they are not in the presence of the primary caregiver - this only becomes an issue when the child is deprived and loses an element of her care. - Extended separations can lead to deprivation.
• The critical period


  - First two and a half years is the critical period for psychological development.

  - Child in absence of care mother and deprived of emotional care then there will be inevitable psychological damage - risk up to 5.
• Intellectual development - AO1

  - Delayed intellectual development characterized as abnormally low IQ.

  - Goldfarb found that lower iQ's were more common in children who were fostered
• Emotional development - AO1

  - Deprivation can leads to affectionless psychopathy.

  - A child who is unable to experience guilt and strong emotion towards others.
• 44 thieves study


  - Aim: to find a link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation

  - Procedure: between 1936 and 39 an opportunity sample of 88 children were selected from a clinic, 44 were thieves and 44 had emotional issues (control group), each had their IQ tested and parents interviewed to see details of early life- done separately by a social worker and psychologist, notes compared on interview

  - Findings: some had early and prolonged separation, 14 out of 44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths- 12 out of 44 thieves had experienced prolonged separation compared to only 2 in control group.

  Conclusion: maternal separation/deprivation in early years causes permanent emotional damage (affectionless psychopaths)
• Flawed evidence


  - Based on poor quality evidence because bowlby himself carried out the experiment.

  - He carried out the family interviews and the assessment which left him open to bias.

  - Also based his evidence on Goldford's study on deprived children in wartime orphanages.

  - Study had problems with confounding variables as children suffered from early trauma and institutional care.
• Deprivation VS privation


  - Confusion between different types of early experiences.

  - Rutter drew an important distinction between the two

  - Deprivation - loss of PAF after attachment had developed

  - Privation - Failure to form an attachment.

  - Rutterfelt Bowly pointed out Privation rather than deprivation .

  - Children in his 44 thieves study and Goldfarb's study may have suffered from privation.
• Conflicting evidence


  Most attempts to replicate 44 thieves study have failed to produce the same results.

  - Lewis (1954) - looked at 500 young people and found association between early separation and later psychopathy.
• 44 thieves study - Aim

  Aim: To find a link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation
• 44 thieves study - procedure

  • Between 1936 and 39 an opportunity sample of 88 children were selected from a clinic,
  • 44 were thieves and 44 had emotional issues (control group), each had their IQ tested and parents interviewed to see details of early life- done separately by a social worker and psychologist, notes compared on interview
• 44 thieves study - findings

  Findings: some had early and prolonged separation, 14 out of 44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths- 12 out of 44 thieves had experienced prolonged separation compared to only 2 in control group.
• 44 thieves study - conclusions

  Conclusion: maternal separation/deprivation in early years causes permanent emotional damage (affectionless psychopaths)