maternal deprivation-Bowlby's theory

• Maternal deprivation is a theory proposed by Bowlby, in which he suggested that that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development, and that prolonged separation from this adult causes serious damage to emotional and intellectual development.
• Bowlby's theory of monotropy suggests that psychological development is dependent on attachments between infant and their mothers/caregivers.
• Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation explains what happens if these attachments are broken (deprivation). There is a difference between separations, meaning that the child is not in the presence of the primary caregiver. These separations are short and may not have a big impact, but prolonged separations may lead to deprivation: loss of the mother's care and be harmful.
• He suggests that disruption of these bonds within the critical period (approximately first 2 years/30 months ) can have serious consequences. He claimed that if the attachment relationship is broken or disrupted during the critical two year period the child will suffer irreversible long-term consequences of this maternal deprivation. This risk continues until the age of 5.
• Consequences of maternal deprivation

  • Intellectual development- Bowlby believed that if a child was deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would suffer delayed intellectual development, characterised by abnormally low IQ
  • Emotional development- Bowlby identified affection less psychopathy, as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others. This prevents the person from developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality. Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions.
• Aim of Bowlby's 44 thieves study:

  This study examined the links between affection, less psychopathy, and maternal deprivation. So Bowlby wanted to investigate the long-term effects of maternal deprivation on people in order to see whether delinquents have suffered and have impaired, intellectual, emotional or social development.
• Procedure: Bowlby 44 thieves study Bowlby used a sample of 44 teenage delinquents. The participants were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy. Their families were also interviewed to establish if there was prolonged early separation from their mothers during the critical period. . A control group of 44 non-criminal teenagers, with emotional problems were all assessed to see how often maternal deprivation occurred to the children who were not thieves.
• results: Bowlby's 44 thieves study Bowlby found that 14 children from the thief group were identified as affectionless psychopaths (they were unable to care about or feel affection for others); 12 had experienced prolonged separation of more than six months from their mothers in their first two years of life.In contrast, only 5 of the 30 children not classified as affectionless psychopaths had experienced separations.
• Continuing results:Out of the 44 children in the control group, only two experienced prolonged separations, and none were affectionless psychopaths.The results support the maternal deprivation hypothesis as they show that most of the children diagnosed as affectionless psychopaths (12 out of 14) had experienced prolonged separation from their primary caregivers during the critical period, as the hypothesis predicts
• Conclusion:Bowlby concluded that maternal deprivation in the child’s early life caused permanent emotional damage.He diagnosed this as a condition and called it Affectionless Psychopathy. According to Bowlby, this condition involves a lack of emotional development, characterized by a lack of concern for others, a lack of guilt, and an inability to form meaningful and lasting relationships.
• strength: supporting evidence from Goldfarb (1947), found a lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care. (The mean IQ of the foster group was 96 compared to 68 of the orphans.) This supports Bowlby's idea of intellectual development being hindered due to maternal deprivation. However this is a weak argument because Goldfarb's evidence is flawed. War-orphans were traumatised and had poor after-care, therefore these factors may have caused later developmental difficulties rather than separation.
• continuing strength: supporting evidence from Goldfarb (1947) Similarly children growing up in poor quality institutions were deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal care.
• strength: it has had wider implications for things like extended hospital stays for children. In order not to disrupt the attachment formation within the critical period (and even the maintenance of the attachment after 2 years old), hospitals can arrange overnight stays for children's parents in hospital long-term. This ensures that the child's attachment is not damaged during the stay, and that the child will be in the best position to return to their families and continue their recovery and lives. This is a strong advantage as, as a result, the usefulness of the theory is increased.
• weakness: study cannot establish casual relationships as the findings were correlational. Not all research has supported Bowlby's findings. For example Hilda Lewis (1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves' study on a larger scale using 500 young people. In her sample a history of early prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships. This is a strong disadvantage for the theory of maternal deprivation because it suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation.
• weakness: researcher bias. The 44 thieves study assessments were carried out by Bowlby himself for affectionless psychopathy and family interviews, knowing what he hoped to find. Furthermore Bowlby developed the concept of affectionless psychopathy. Instead Bowlby should have had another researcher conduct the study and analyse the data. This is a strong disadvantage because it means that it lacks internal validity and therefore cannot gain external validity.
• weakness: Bowlby muddles up maternal deprivation with actual privation in his research. Michael Rutter (1981) claimed that when Bowlby talked of deprivation he was muddling two concepts together. Rutter drew a distinction between deprivation (loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has developed) whereas privation is failure to form any attachment in the first place. Rutter claimed long term damage is more likely to be the result of privation.
• continuing weakness: muddles up maternal deprivation with actual privation This is a strong disadvantage as it makes us question Bowlby as a researcher if he can not identify the difference between deprivation and privation.