Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation
Bowlby came up with a theory about maternal deprivation and said that all children require a
mother or mother substitute to have proper emotional and intellectual development. Any
separation from babies might lead to maternal deprivation. He said that motherly love is important
for mental health. Separation and deprivation are different words with different meanings.
Separation is the child isn't in the presence of a primary attachment figure, whilst deprivation means
that the child has lost their emotional care as a result of the separation. Deprivation can be avoided
if alternative emotional care is available, such as another caregiver. Bowlby found that there was a
critical period of two and a half years. This means that if a child is separated from their mother for
the first two and half years of their life, then the damage is inevitable. He also said that there is a
continuing risk of up to five years. If a child is deprived of a mother during the critical period, then
this can lead to lower IQ, and damage to emotional development, which Bowlby called affectionless
psychopathy.
Bowlby carried out a study called the 4 thieves study. 44 delinquent teenagers who had been
accused of stealing were analysed. They were all interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy,
which was characterised by a lack of affection, guilt and empathy. The thieves' families were also
interviewed to see if there was any separation from their mothers during their critical period. The
study showed that 14 of the thieves were described as affectionless psychopaths, and 12 of these
teenagers had been separated from their mothers for the first 2 years of their life. Five of the
remaining 30 thieves had experienced separation, which suggests that separation can cause
affectionless psychopathy.
A limitation of the study is that the sources of maternal deprivation are flawed. The 44 thieves study
was carried out by Bowlby, who knew what he was going to study and what he hoped to find. This
means that Bowlby didn't have solid evidence to base his theory on.
However, a counterpoint is that some newer studies support maternal deprivation. One researcher
found that separating baby rats for one day had permanent damage to their social development.
This means that there might be some more modern evidence.
Another limitation is that Bowlby confused deprivation and privation. Rutter said that deprivation is
separation from an attachment figure, whilst privation is failure to form an attachment. This means
that privation has much more serious effects. The children in Bowlby's 44 thieves study have been
prived, not deprived. This means Bowlby could have exaugurated the effects of deprivation on
development.
Another limitation is that the critical period is more of a sensitive period. One researcher carried out
a case study of twin boys who were locked in isolation from when they were 18 months. They were
found by two adults who loved them and the twins recovered fully. This shows that some severe
outcomes can be reversed with positive interactions and aftercare.
Bowlby came up with a theory about maternal deprivation and said that all children require a
mother or mother substitute to have proper emotional and intellectual development. Any
separation from babies might lead to maternal deprivation. He said that motherly love is important
for mental health. Separation and deprivation are different words with different meanings.
Separation is the child isn't in the presence of a primary attachment figure, whilst deprivation means
that the child has lost their emotional care as a result of the separation. Deprivation can be avoided
if alternative emotional care is available, such as another caregiver. Bowlby found that there was a
critical period of two and a half years. This means that if a child is separated from their mother for
the first two and half years of their life, then the damage is inevitable. He also said that there is a
continuing risk of up to five years. If a child is deprived of a mother during the critical period, then
this can lead to lower IQ, and damage to emotional development, which Bowlby called affectionless
psychopathy.
Bowlby carried out a study called the 4 thieves study. 44 delinquent teenagers who had been
accused of stealing were analysed. They were all interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy,
which was characterised by a lack of affection, guilt and empathy. The thieves' families were also
interviewed to see if there was any separation from their mothers during their critical period. The
study showed that 14 of the thieves were described as affectionless psychopaths, and 12 of these
teenagers had been separated from their mothers for the first 2 years of their life. Five of the
remaining 30 thieves had experienced separation, which suggests that separation can cause
affectionless psychopathy.
A limitation of the study is that the sources of maternal deprivation are flawed. The 44 thieves study
was carried out by Bowlby, who knew what he was going to study and what he hoped to find. This
means that Bowlby didn't have solid evidence to base his theory on.
However, a counterpoint is that some newer studies support maternal deprivation. One researcher
found that separating baby rats for one day had permanent damage to their social development.
This means that there might be some more modern evidence.
Another limitation is that Bowlby confused deprivation and privation. Rutter said that deprivation is
separation from an attachment figure, whilst privation is failure to form an attachment. This means
that privation has much more serious effects. The children in Bowlby's 44 thieves study have been
prived, not deprived. This means Bowlby could have exaugurated the effects of deprivation on
development.
Another limitation is that the critical period is more of a sensitive period. One researcher carried out
a case study of twin boys who were locked in isolation from when they were 18 months. They were
found by two adults who loved them and the twins recovered fully. This shows that some severe
outcomes can be reversed with positive interactions and aftercare.
