Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Theory Not to be confused with his Monotropic Theory of attachment

What was Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis stating? That if a child does not form an attachment within the critical period, or if the attachment is disrupted, Bowlby argues that this could result in serious long-term developmental consequences later in life 

Attachment Disruption Causes distress when infant is separated for a relatively short period of time from P C Giver to whom an attachment has been formed Separation Deprivation Bond disruption Privation means NO attachment has been formed at all Occurs when a bond that has been formed is broken

The Critical Period Bowlby considered that there was a critical period from about 6 months to 2 ½ years when infants should have a continuous, unbroken relationship with one person (this later became monotropism)

JB’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis “Prolonged deprivation of a young child of maternal care may have grave and far-reaching effects on his character…similar in form…to deprivation of vitamins in infancy”

Bowlby concluded that Maternal love was necessary for mental health / emotional development, the same as food is important for physical development Loss of a mother fig (maternal deprivation) during first few years of life may lead to issues later on in life – i.e the infant potentially not thriving Maternal deprivation may have a lasting effect on whether the child can form bonds later in life and on social, emotional and even physical development!

Bowlby developed his Maternal deprivation theory He said attachment is important for survival It creates the prototype for later relationships (internal working model) It can be used to predict developmental difficulty if the attachment relationship goes wrong – i.e General developmental problems Specific issues with social development

Maternal deprivation hypothesis was based on the 44 thieves study Bowlby (1946) Compared ‘delinquent’ (i.e. criminal) and ‘disturbed’ children He found 32% of delinquents had an ‘affectionless character’ Meaning an apparent inability to relate to others 86% of these ‘affectionless characters’ had experienced maternal deprivation

Disruption to attachment process Inability to form relationships with others Lack of moral constraints on behaviour Delinquent or criminal behaviour

Maternal deprivation hypothesis – supporting evidence Spitz (1945) Investigated children in orphanages Most showed signs of ‘anaclitic depression’ Apathy, withdrawal, helplessness, low appetite He found that survival rates of children raised in prison were better than those raised in orphanages.

However Spitz & Wolf (1946) Investigated 100 psychologically normal children in long-term hospital care Most showed signs of depression They found that most recovered quickly if the period of hospitalisation was less than 3 months. This suggests the length of separation is an important factor, and that the effects are reversible 

Maternal deprivation hypothesis Criticisms of Bowlby (1946): Retrospective data ‘Affectionless’ diagnosis made by Bowlby – possibility of bias Great variation in duration of separation from mother Overemphasised the fact of separation at the expense of the reasons for separation- also didn’t take into account the reasons for the separation

Criticism of Bowlby’s Theory Research has shown that Bowlby overemphasised the importance of the continuity of the bond and the need for the child for only one particular attachment relationship - L can you think of anymore criticisms?

Criticism The following specific criticisms have been raised:  In ethology the ideas of the critical period has been replaced by a ‘sensitive’ period – a more flexible concept.  Deprivation effects in 6-month-old isolated monkeys can be overcome by placing them with 3-month-old normally reared monkeys (Suomi & Harlow, 1972).  Intensity of response to strangers in human infants depends on previous experience. 1-2 year-olds can form relationships with new adults.

Criticism of Bowlby’s Theory (continued) Research does not uphold the idea of monotropism. E.g: Children have been found to form attachment bonds with more than one adult and separation from one attachment figure can be compensated for if another is present (e.g. Main & Weston, 1981). There is no straightforward relationship between early separation experiences and adolescent delinquency (Rutter, 1981). Death of a parent does not have the same effect as separation/divorce. The critical factor is whether children are sensitively supported.

Evidence for Bowlby’s MDH Theory  Work on imprinting and the ‘following’ response - E  Observations of young children separated from their parents who went through a characteristic sequence: Protest Despair Detachment Protest, despair, detachment model (Roberston & Bowlby, 1952) - S  Research showed that children in long-term institutional care were underdeveloped in social, language and cognitive development - S The social maladjustment of isolated monkeys (Harlow & Harlow, 1958, 1969) - S  Evidence linking delinquency in adolescence with separation experiences in childhood - Bowlby (1944) ’44 Thieves study’ - E

Recap…. Keeping track.... What have we covered so far in Attachment? What you need to learn Definition of attachment Reciprocity Interactional synchronicity Development of attachment Schaffer and Emerson (1964) describe and evaluate Stages of attachment Role of the father Animal studies of attachment Lorenz (imprinting) Harlow Describe and evaluate these two studies linking them to attachment Explanations of attachment Learning approach explanation of attachment: describe and evaluate Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment describe and evaluate The Strange Situation (Ainsworth, 1978) Describe and evaluate Types of attachment Cross-cultural variations in attachment (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg Disruption of attachment Maternal deprivation Hypothesis Effects of institutionalisation-Romanian orphans: Rutter & Songa-Barke Influence of early attachment Internal working model Hazan and Shaver describe and evaluate Recap…. What have we covered so far in Attachment? How confident are you with the content knowledge (A01)? Can you apply the content / knowledge (A02) ? Can you can evaluate the content / knowledge (A03)?