Bowlby's Theory of Maternal Deprivation

Question 1

Theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 1

Bowlby proposed a theory of attachment but prior to this he developed the theory of maternal deprivation (1951). This earlier theory focused on the idea that the continual presence of nurture from a mother/mother-substitute is essential for normal psychological development of babies and toddlers, both emotionally and intellectually. Bowlby famously said that ‘mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health’ (Bowlby 1953). Being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences (maternal deprivation).

Question 2

Separation vs deprivation

Answer 2

There is an important distinction to be made between separation and deprivation. Separation simply means the child not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure. This only becomes an issue for development if the child is deprived, i.e. they lose an element of her care. Briefs separations, particularly where the child is with a substitute caregiver, are not significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation, which by definition causes harm.

Question 3

The critical period

Answer 3

Bowlby saw the first 30 months of life as a critical period for psychological development. If a child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable substitute care and so deprived of her emotional care for an extended period during this critical period then Bowlby believed psychological damage was inevitable.

Question 4

Effects on development

Answer 4

Intellectual development: One way in which maternal deprivation affects children’s development is their intellectual development. Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would suffer delayed intellectual development, characterised by abnormally low IQ. This has been demonstrated in studies of adoption. For example, Goldfarb (1947) found 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.

Emotional development: The second major way in which being deprived of a mother figure’s emotional care affects children is in their emotional development. Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others. This prevents the person developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality. Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions.

Question 5

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (examines the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation)

Answer 5

Procedure
The sample in this study consisted of 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 the victims. Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separations from their mothers. A control group of non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people was set up to see how often maternal separation/deprivation occurred in the children who were not thieves.

Findings
Bowlby (1944) found that 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths. Of this 14, 12 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of their lives. In contrast only 5 of the remaining 30 ‘thieves’ had experienced separations. Of the control group, only 2 out of 44 had experienced long separations. It was concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.

Question 6

Evaluation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (the evidence may be poor, counter-evidence, the critical period is actually more of a sensitive period)

Answer 6

• Bowlby drew on a number of sources of evidence for maternal deprivation including studies of children orphaned during the Second World War, those growing up in poor quality orphanages, and of course his 44 thieves study.
  However, these are all flawed as evidence. War-orphans were traumatised and often have poor after-care, therefore these factors might have been the causes of later developmental difficulties rather than separation. Similarly, children growing up from birth in poor quality institutions were deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal care.
  Furthermore, the 44 thieves study had some major design flaws, most importantly bias; Bowlby himself carried out the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews, knowing what he hoped to find.
• Not all research has supported Bowlby’s findings. For example, Hilda 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.
• Bowlby used the term ‘critical period’ because he believed that prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if it took place within that period. However, it later research has shown that damage is not inevitable. Some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare.
  For example, Koluchová (1976) reported the case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia who were isolated from the age of 18 months until they were 7 (their stepmother kept them locked in a cupboard). Subsequently they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully. Cases like this show that the period identified by Bowlby may be a ‘sensitive’ one but cannot be critical.