LT6 - Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis

LT6 - Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis

1. AO1

   • Separation Vs Deprivation
     • Separation
       • Child not being in presence of caregiver
         • No serious consequences
     • Deprivation
       • Extended separation
         • No comfort care substituion
         • Severe, long-term irreversible, negative, osychological consequenes
           • EG 1950 Hosptials, evacuees
   • Effects of MDH
     • Emotional
       • Affectionless Psychopathy
         • Lack emotional feelings
         • Lack remorse, guilt
         • Associated with criminality
     • Intellectual
       • Mental Retardation
         • elayed Intellectual development
           • Abnormally low IQ
         • Goldfarb
           • Lower IQs, institutional care, foster
   • 44 Thieves Study
     • Procedures
       • 1944, 44 Teens accused of stealing, 44 normal teens
       • Natural Experiment
         • Thieves already stole, Bowlby just collected DV data
       • Interview thieves, asking them questions about apathy, lack of affection, guilt, remorse
         • Bowlby interviewed families to see extended separation
     • Findings
       • 14/44
         • 12/14
           • APs
             • Deprivation
           • 5/30
             • Thieves
               • Not APs
                 • Deprivation
             • 2/44
               • Not Thieves
                 • Deprivation
         • Thieves
           • AP
   • Critical period
     • Time period to form monotropic bonds
       • 2 Years
       • Sensitive Period = 5 years
     • Long-term, irreversible consequences
     • Socially, emotionally, psychologically

2. AO3

   • Weaknesses
     • P: Non-represenative sample
       • E1: War Trauma, Malnutrition, Poor Healthcare available, poor aftercare from evacuation
         • E2: Means MDH is not the cause, CVs
           • E3: Poor health delaying development, The Blitz, losing loved ones
             • L: Lowers internal validity
     • P: Methodological issues
       • E1: Natural Experiment = No random allocation, Individual Diff
         • E2: Experimenter effects: Knowledge of hyp = allocation of AP
           • E3: SDB of parents
             • L: Casts doubt on Bowlby's conclusions
   • Strengths
     • P: Applications
       • E1: Long temr change - Hospital visiting rules to 24 hours, 7 days from 1 hour, comfort care always available!
         • E2: Social Care Policy - Insitutionalisation to foster care and adoption, reducing effects of MDH
           • L: Improved QoL