Attachment - Maternal Deprivation (Bowlby)

Question 1

Maternal deprivation

Answer 1

Separation between mother & child leads to emotional (affectionless psychopathy) & intellectual (delayed development/low IQ -> found by Goldfarb) consequences

Question 2

Separation

Answer 2

Short term time away from primary attachment figure

Question 3

Deprivation

Answer 3

Extended separation from primary attachment figure

Question 4

Privation

Answer 4

Bond never had the chance to form initially, leading to no attachment figures

Question 5

Bowlby’s study

Answer 5

44 thieves -> examining link between affectionless psychopathy & MD by interviewing teenagers who were accused of stealing + their families
Findings: 14 had affectionless psychopathic tendencies, 12/14 had prolonged separations, control group had only 2

Question 6

Criticism of 44 thieves study

Answer 6

Lack of clear distinction between separation & deprivation, researcher bias as Bowlby himself conducted both interviews so he already knew who was deprived

Question 7

Strength of maternal deprivation theory

Answer 7

Supporting evidence (Frederic Levy -> separating baby rats from mother for as little as a day had permanent social developmental effect -> supports theory [ignores intellectual & emotional and isn’t generalisable to humans])

Question 8

Limitations of maternal deprivation theory

Answer 8

Researcher bias (Bowlby doing both interviews -> subconsciously able to characterise participants)
Contradictory evidence (Damage was inevitable if no attachment in first 2.5 years of life -> Czech twins experienced severe emo & physical abuse but still were able to form attachments later)