Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation

• Continuous emotional (maternal) care from a mother or mother-substitute is necessary for normal emotional and intellectual development.
• 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 means the child is 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 doesn't always cause deprivation.
• There is a critical period of 2 and a half years. If a child is separated from their mother (without substitute emotional care) for an extended time during the first 2 and a half years, then psychological damage is inevitable. There is a continuing risk up to the age of 5.
• Intellectual development: 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 IQs in children from institutions compared to fostered children.
• Emotional development: 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.
• Bowlby (1944)'s 44 thieves study procedure:


  The sample in this study was 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.
• Bowlby (1944)'s 44 thieves study findings:

  14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths. 12 of these had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of their lives. In contrast, only five of the remaining 30 'thieves' had experienced separations. This suggests prolonged early separation/ deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.
• AO3 - 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 of maternal deprivation.
• AO3 - 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. The children Bowlby studied (eg. the 44 thieves), and others he based his ideas on (eg. Goldfarb's wartime orphans) may have been prived rather than deprived. This means that Bowlby probably exaggerated the effects of deprivation on development.
• AO3 - The critical period is more of a sensitive period:

  Koluchova (1976) conducted a case study of Czech twin boys isolated from age 18 months (locked in a cupboard). Later they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully. 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.
• AO3 - Counter-evidence:


  Lewis (1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale, looking at 500 young people. In her sample a history of prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships. This is a problem for the theory of maternal deprivation because it suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation.