Bowlbys Theory of Deprivation- A03
- Created by: MollyL20
- Created on: 10-12-20 19:08
View mindmap
- Bowlby's theory of deprivation- 44 thieves- A03
- The evidence may be poor
- 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 his 44 thieves study
- These are all flawed evidence. War-orphans were traumatised and often had poor after care, these factors may have been the causes of later developmental issues rather than seperation
- 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
- Counter evidence
- Not all research supports 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 their 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
- Not all research supports Bowlby's findings. For example, Hilda Lewis (1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale, looking at 500 young people
- The critical period is actually more of a sensitive period
- Bowlby used the term critical period because he believed that prolonged separation inevitably caused damaged if ti took place within that period
- However, later research has shown that damage is inevitable. Some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes provided the child had some social interactions and good aftercare
- For example, Jarmila Koluchova (1976) reported the case of twin boys who were isolated form 18 months until they were 7 years old. Subsequently, they were looked after by 2 caring adults and appeared to recover fully
- Cases like this show that the period identified by Bowlby may be a sensitive period but not critical
- The evidence may be poor
Comments
No comments have yet been made