Bowlby's Theory Of Maternal Deprivation Evaluation

Bowlby drew on No. of sources for evidence, inc Second World War orphans, those i poor quality orphanages and 44 thieves study. But they are all flwaed, war-orphans traumitised and oft poor care, may have been casue of later difficulties. Poor quality istitutions  deprived of many aspects of care not just maternal. 44 Theives, Bowlby bias, carried out assesmetns for affectionless psychopathy and family interviews. He knew what he wanted to find.

Not all research has supported. E.g. Hilda Lewis replicated 44 Theives on a larger scael. In her sample a history of early prolonged separation from mother didn't predict criminality. Problem bc it suggests other factors affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation

Bowlby beleived that the damage was inevitable But research has shown its not. Some cases of severe deprivation have had good outcomes if child has good aftercare and some social interaction. e.g. Koluchova repoted case of twins isolated from 18m to 7yrs old. Subsequently they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully.

Levy showed that separting baby rats from mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on social development though not other aspects.

Rutter claimed when Bowlby talked about deprivation he was muddling the two together. Rutter drew a distinction, deprivation means loss of the PGC after attachment has developed, privation means faliure to form any attachment in the first place. Rutter said the severe long term damage is more to do with privation than deprivation.