Bowlby's Theory of Maternal Deprivation

• Define 'maternal deprivation'

  The emotional and intellectual consequences of the separation between a child and their mother/mother-substitute. Bowlby proposed that continuous care from a mother is crucial for normal psychological development, and that prolonged separation from a maternal figure can cause serious harm to intellectual and emotional development.
• Separation versus deprivation

  - It is important to note the difference between separation and deprivation.

  - Separation simply means that the child is not in the presence of the PAF.

  - Brief separations where the child has a substitute caregiver to provide emotional care will not adversely affect development, however, extended separations can lead to deprivation, which will inevitably cause some form of harm.
• The critical period

  - Bowlby suggested that the critical period for psychological development was the first two and a half years of life.

  - If a child is separated from their mother during this time with no adequate substitute caregiver for an extended period, they will become deprived of emotional care, and so Bowlby believed that psychological damage was inevitable.

  - He also believed that there was a continuing risk up to the age of 5.
• Effects on intellectual and emotional development


  - Intellectual development: Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for an extended time in the critical period, they would experience delayed intellectual development, characterised by an abnormally low IQ.

  - Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in children who remained in institutions compared to those who were fostered, ergo, they received a high level of emotional care.

  
  

  - Emotional development: Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as a result of a lack of maternal care. He described this as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others.

  - This prevents the development of fulfilling relationships and is also associated with criminality.

  - Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of their victims, and so feel no remorse for their actions.
• Bowlby (1944) - the 44 thieves study

  - The 44 thieves study examined the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.

  - The sample consisted of 44 criminal teenagers who had been accused of stealing.

  - The thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy, e.g. a lack of affection, lack of guilt for their actions and a lack of empathy for their victims.

  - Bowlby also interviewed the thieves' families to establish whether there were any prolonged separations in their early childhoods.

  - The sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminals but emotionally disturbed young people.

  - Bowlby (1944) found that 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths, and 12 of these APs had experienced some form of prolonged separation from their mothers in their early lives.

  - Contrastingly, only 5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced separations, and only 2 of the 44 participants in the control group had experienced long separations.

  - Overall, Bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy
• Evaluating Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation: Flawed evidence (with counterpoint)

  - A limitation of the theory is that Bowlby's supporting research, the 44 thieves study, had flaws.

  - Bowlby carried out both the family interviews and the assessments for affectionless psychopathy. This would've left him open to bias as he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy.

  - Bowlby was influenced by Goldfarb's (1943) research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages. His study had the issue of confounding variables as the children had experienced poor institutional care and early trauma as well as prolonged separation from mothers.

  - This means that Bowlby's original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws and could not be used as serious evidence today.

  
  

  - Counterpoint: Lévy et al. (2003) gives some support for the effects of prolonged maternal deprivation. He showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, but not any other aspects.

  - Despite Bowlby relying on flawed evidence, there are still other more reliable sources of evidence to support his theory of maternal deprivation.
• Evaluating Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation: Deprivation and privation

  - Another limitation is Bowlby's distinction between deprivation and privation.

  - Rutter (1981) recognised this important distinction. Deprivation refers strictly to the loss of the PAF after an attachment has formed. However, privation is the failure to form any attachment at all.

  - Rutter said that the severe long-term damage that Bowlby associated with deprivation was actually more likely to be the result of privation. This means that the children studied by Goldfarb weren't deprived, but prived.

  - Similarly, many of the children in the 44 thieves study had disruption in their early lives, and may never have formed a strong attachment.

  - Therefore, Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in a child's development.
• Evaluating Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation: Critical versus sensitive periods

  - Also, a limitation of Bowlby's theory is his idea of a critical period.

  - Bowlby believed that damage was inevitable if an attachment wasn't formed within the first two and a half years of a child's life.

  - However, there is evidence to suggest that good quality aftercare can prevent most or all of the damage.

  - Koluchova (1976) studied the Czech Twins. The twins experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from 18 months to 7 years old.

  - Despite being severely damaged emotionally, they received excellent care, and by their teenage years, had recovered fully.

  - This means that lasting harm is not inevitable, even in severe cases of privation, such as the Czech Twins.

  - Therefore, the critical period can be better seen as a sensitive period.
• Evaluating Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation: Conflicting evidence


  - Most attempts to replicate the 44 thieves study have failed to produce similar results to Bowlby.

  - For example, Lewis (1954) looked at 500 young people and found no association between early separation and later psychopathy.

  - On the other hand, more recent research such as Gao et al. (2010) has partially supported Bowlby by showing that poor maternal care was associated with high rates of psychopathy in adults.