John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation

John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation

Bowlby believed that maternal behaviour was instinctive in humans as

it appears to be in animals. Mothers and their babies form an

instinctive attachment to each other using genetically inherited

skills such as smiling, grasping, crying and so on. If a separation

occurs between mother and infant within the first few years of the

child’s life, Bowlby believed that the bond would be irreversibly

broken, leading to severe emotional consequences for the infant in

later life. He referred to this as maternal deprivation. Bowlby

claimed that maternal deprivation had the following consequences:

1. Aggressiveness

5. Depression

2. Delinquency

6. Dependency anxiety (being 'clinging')

3. Dwarfism (retarded growth)

7. Affectionless psychopathy (showing no feelings for others)

4. Intellectual retardation

8. Social maladjustment

(To help you remember these, the first letters of each spell ADDIDDAS)

Evidence for these claims comes from a number of research studies

including: Spitz, Spitz & Wolf, Goldfarb, Robertson & Robertson

& Reading: Davenport p43 - 46 for detailed accounts of these studies.

As well as the 'evidence' from ethological studies and psychoanalytic

theory, Bowlby also conducted his own studies of maternal deprivation,

notably his study on ‘forty-four juvenile thieves’.

& Reading: Davenport p41-42 ‘What happens if attachments are

insecure?’

Evaluation of Bowlby’s contribution

-----------------------------------

Bowlby's ideas had far-reaching effects, leading to a much more

child-centred approach by many institutions and organisations. It...

... middle of paper ...

...point

Bowlby himself realised by the late 1950's.

Evidence from studies of separation have concluded that Bowlby's

concept of maternal deprivation is too vague, and tends to ignore the

influence of attachments other than those with the mother.

Psychologists now use the term parenting in order to emphasise that

'mothering' can be provided by people other than the natural mother,

and even by several people, both male and female.

The main criticisms of Bowlby are:

1. His concept of maternal deprivation is much too broad

2. The effects of maternal deprivation can be reversed later — as

shown in the studies of Koluchova and the Robertsons

3. Most studies were poorly controlled

4. He ignores children’s ability to form attachments with other adults

and/or children

5. His samples were unrepresentative