A03 Bowlby's Theory Of Maternal Deprivation

• The evidence may be poor

  Bowlby drew evidence from studies of children orphaned during WW2, those growing up in poor quality orphanages and the 44 thieves study is flawed as evidence. War-orphans traumatised and often had poor after-care and thus these factors could have been causes in later developmental difficulties rather than separation
• Deprivation caused by intuitions

  Also, children growing up in poor quality institutions were deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal care. 44 thieves study is bias because Bowlby collected all the results himself
• Counter-evidence

  Lewis partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale with 500 young people. In her sample, a history of early prolonged separation, the mother did not predict criminality/difficulty forming close relationships. Suggests other factors may effect outcome of maternal deprivation
• The critical period is more of a sensitive period


  Bowlby used term 'critical period' as he believed prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if it took place in that period. Later research has shown damage isn't inevitable. Some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes provided the child some social interaction and good after-care
• Koluchova's study


  Koluchova reported case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia who were isolated from age of 18 months until they were 7 -(stepmother locked them in a cupboard)
• Recovery of twin boys

  Subsequently, they were looked after by 2 loving adults and recovered fully. Shows period identified by Bowlby may be a sensitive one and cannot be critical
• Animal studies show effects of maternal deprivation

  Levy et al showed that separating baby rats from their mothers as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development showing that maternal deprivation has long-term effects. However, most psychologists are critical of theory of maternal deprivation
• Failure to distinguish between deprivation and privation

  Rutter stated that Bowlby is muddling two concepts when talking of deprivation. Rutter drew a distinction between deprivation which really means the loss of a primary attachment figure when attachment has developed
• Privation


  Whereas privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place. Rutter claimed that severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually the result of privation