Summary AQA A level Psychology: Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis
3 views 0 purchase
Course
All modules
Institution
AQA
Book
AQA Psychology for A Level Year 1 & AS - Student Book
This document provides detailed notes into Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis, including extensive A03 evaluation explaining strengths, limitations, and real-world applications. I found it easy to mix this theory with Bowlby's monotropic theory, these notes will set them apart clearly.
Hi...
AQA Psychology AS/A Level - Topic 1: Social Influence
Memory summary notes, aqa a level psychology
AQA A-Level Psychology | A* Student Notes | Social Influence
All for this textbook (173)
Written for
A/AS Level
AQA
Pscyhology
All modules
All documents for this subject (59)
Seller
Follow
benjamincatling
Content preview
Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis
Definition overview: The continual presence of care/nurture is essential for psychological
development in a child, the sudden absence of this causes the child to become deprived.
This causes inevitable damage to development.
Critical period: If child is deprived of care during this period of 2.5 years (sometimes 5-year
sensitive period) this can cause damage to the internal working model and ability to parent
future children, by forming a continuous negative mental representation. (Law of continuity)
Lack of development: Bowlby said that effects of this can be intellectual, social, emotional.
Emotional development: may develop Affectionless psychopathy including lack of guilt,
Lack remorse, inconsideration for others’ emotions. These people are perhaps more likely to commit
crime and less likely to have successful relationships.
Delayed intellectual development: Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis says that deprivation
during the critical period can result in an abnormally low IQ.
Bowlby’s MDH derived from a previous study he carried out called the 44 thieves’ study.
Procedure: Interviewed 44 teenagers accused of stealing and aimed to classify them as affectionless
psychopaths. (Compared to a control group of 44 that aren’t accused) and assessed relationship
with their mother.
Results: 14/44 could classify as affectionless psychopaths, 12 of those had experienced separation.
Conclusion: Prolonged early separation results in deprivation, which caused the affectionless
psychopathy.
Evaluation of Bowlby’s MDH
One limitation of the Maternal deprivation theory is that the studies to support it e.g., 44 thieves, is
contradicted by later research. Lewis conducted a similar study using a significantly larger sample of
500 and found no association between early separation and likeliness to commit crime. This
criticises Bowlby’s MDH which suggests that separation from the mother causes affectionless
psychopathy, which in turn makes one more likely to commit crime due to lack of guilt/empathy.
This suggests that there are other unknown factors that could contribute to separated children
committing crime e.g., poverty.
Bowlby’s MDH is criticised for overstating the effects of deprivation, through use of incorrect
terminology. Rutter states how although Bowlby researched people who experienced deprivation,
the effects discussed are better described as ‘privation’, whereby an attachment is never formed,
instead of deprivation where an attachment has been formed at some point. This proposes a major
flaw in how Bowlby explains maternal deprivation.
Bowlby’s theories have been praised for its positive application onto institutions like hospital and
social working. i.e., the way children are cared for has greatly improved due to his suggestions, for
example, parents can now remain with their child at birth for longer periods of time, whereas before
they were separated soon after.
Counterpoint: However, his theory is seeing as socially sensitive towards those that his theories
represent, for example by suggesting separation from the mother could lead to affectionless
psychopathy, this could make working mothers feel guilty and primary carer fathers feel inadequate,
therefore the credibility that Bowlby’s theory receives is polarised.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller benjamincatling. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.91. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
