BMD

Question 1

Real world applications

Answer 1

One strength of the research into maternal deprivation is that it has real world practical applications. Before Bowlby’s research, children were separated from parents when they spent time in hospital, because medical professionals believed that hospitals only needed to look after the physical needs of the child, and discouraged parents from visiting
because children seemed to get distressed by the visits. One of Bowlby’s colleagues Robertson (1952) filmed a two-year-old girl called Laura during the eight day period she was in hospital she was frequently distressed and begged to go home. They concluded that
substitute emotional care can prevent bond disruption and prevent the harmful effects of
separation/deprivation. Bowlby and Robertson’s research led to major changes in the way children were cared for in hospital. This illustrates the positive impact that research into attachment has had on childcare practices.

Question 2

Counter evidence

Answer 2

However not all research has supported Bowlby’s findings. For example, Lewis (1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves’ study on a larger scale, looking at 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 problem for the theory of maternal deprivation because it suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation. Furthermore the 44 thieves’ study had some major design flaws, most important investigator bias; Bowlby himself carried out the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews, knowing what he hoped to find. validity of Bowlby’s findings.

Question 3

Individual Differences

Answer 3

Another criticism of the research into maternal deprivation is that
individual differences need to be considered. Research has shown that not all children are affected by maternal separation in the same way. Barrett, after reviewing various studies concluded securely attached children coped reasonably well with separation, whereas insecure attachment children become especially distressed. A similar conclusion was drawn from another study by Bowlby (1956) of children who were hospitalised (because they had TB) and experienced prolonged disruption of attachment. Bowlby suggested that those
children who coped better may have been more securely attached and thus more resilient to the separation. Both studies therefore suggest that individual differences such as attachment types need to be considered when assessing the negative effects of disruption of
attachment.