Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation Flashcards
Maternal deprivation
The emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their mother or mother-substitute. Bowlby proposed 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
The theory of maternal deprivation
-Bowlby’s early work looked at maternal deprivation
- This theory focused on the idea that the continual presence of care from the mother (or mother-substitute) is essential for normal psychological development of babies and toddlers, both emotionally and intellectually
- Bowlby (1953) said that: ‘Mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are victims and protein for physical health’
-Being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences (maternal deprivation)
Separation vs deprivation
- There is an important distinction to be made between separation and deprivation
- Separation - means the child not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure
- This only becomes a problem if the child becomes deprived of emotional care (this can happen when the mother is present if the mother, e.g. if they have depression)
- Brief separation, especially when the child is with a substitute caregiver who can provide emotional care, are not significant for development but extended separation can lead to deprivation, which can cause harm
The Critical period
- Bowlby saw the first two and a half years as a critical period for psychological development
- If a child was separated from their mother in the absence of suitable care and so deprived of her emotional care for an extended duration during this critical time, Bowlby believed psychological damage was inevitable
He also believed there was a continuing risk up to the age of 5
Intellectual development
Bowlby believed that if children were derived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would experience delayed intellectual development - measured by an abnormally low IQ
- This has been demonstrated in studies of adoption
- Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered (and had a higher standard of emotional care)
- In 1995, Goldfarb followed up the 30 orphaned children at the age of 12 - half the sample had been fostered by 4 months, with the other half remaining at the orphanage
- At 12 their IQs were assessed using the standard the IQ test called the Stanford-Biney test
It was found that the fostered group had an average IQ of 96 whereas the group that remained in the orphanage averaged only 68, below the cut-off point used to define intellectual disability
Emotional development
- Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others. This prevents a person developing fulfilling relationships and is associated with criminality
-Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse of their actions
Bowlby’s procedure
- 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
- All ‘thieves’ were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy, characterised as a lack of affection, lack of guilt about their actions and lack of empathy for their victims
- Their families were also interviewed in order to assess whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separation from their mothers
The sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people
Bowlby’s findings
- 14 of the 44 thieves can be described as affectionless psychopaths and 12 of these had prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of life
- In contrast, only 5 of the remaining 30 ‘thieves’ had experienced separations
- Only two participants in the control group of 44 had experienced long separation
Bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy
Limitation -flawed evidence
- Theory of maternal deprivation has poor quality of evidence
- Bowlby’s 44 thieves study is flawed as Bowlby himself carried out both the family interviews and the assessments for affectionless psychopathy - left him open to bias as he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy
- Bowlby was also influenced by the findings of Goldfarb’s research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages - had problems with confounding variables because the children in Goldfarb’s study had experienced early trauma and institutional care as well as prolonged separation from their primary caregivers
As a result, Bowlby’s original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws that could not be taken seriously as modern evidence
Counterpoint to flawed evidence
New line of research has support for the idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects
Frederic Levy et al (2003) showed that separating baby rats from their mothers for as little as a day for permanent effects on their social development though not other aspects of development - means that Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support the theory of maternal deprivation
Limitation to deprivation and privation
- The confusion between different types of early experience
- Michael Rutter (1981) - important distinction between two types of early negative experience
- Deprivation strictly refers to the loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has developed - the other hand privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place (this may have taken place when children are brought up in institutional care)
- Rutter said the long-term damage that Bowlby thought was a result of deprivation may the result of privation
- The children who were studied by Goldfarb may have been ‘prived’ rather than deprived
- Similarly, many children in the 44 thieves study had disrupted early lives and may have never formed strong attachment
Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation
Critical vs sensitive period - limitation
- Bowlby - damage was inevitable if a child had not formed an attachment in the first two-and-a-half years of life so this was a critical period
- However, there is evidence to suggest that good quality aftercare can prevent most or all of this damage
- Jarmilla Koluchova (1976) reported the case of the Czech twins - twins experienced very severe physical and emotional abuse from the age of 18 months up until they were seven years old
- They were several damaged emotionally by their experience they received excellent care and by their teens they had recovered fully
- Means that lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation - the critical period is therefore better seen as a ‘sensitive period’
Conflicting evidence
- Most attempts to replicated the 44 thieves study failed to produce similar results
- Hilda Lewis (1954) looked at 500 young people and found not association between early separation and later psychopathy (criminality and relationship difficulties)
Counterpoint to conflicting evidence
Recent research has supported Bowlby by showing that poor quality maternal care was associated with high rates of psychopathy in adults
