Bowlby then went on to hypothesis on the long term effect of maternal deprivation. The most common effect of long term deprivation (cause by death of parent or divorce) is what Bowlby termed separation anxiety. This may manifest itself in the following ways;
- Increased aggressive behaviour and greater demands towards the mother.
- Clinging behaviour, the child is unable to let the mother out of his sight. This may also generalise to other relationships later in adulthood.
- Detachment; the child becomes apparently self-sufficient because it cannot afford to be let down again.
Amanda Alderson
Access to Healthcare
5th December 2003
- Psychosomatic reactions, physical symptoms associated with/caused by stress or anxiety.
This hypothesis was based mostly on the study Bowlby conducted of 44 juvenile thieves. Bowlby compared a group of 44 juveniles who had been convicted of stealing with another group of 44 delinquents who were emotionally disturbed but had had no criminal convictions. His findings were that 32% of the thieves were suffering from affectionless psychopathy but none of the other control group were suffering. Bowlby found that 64% of the thieves had suffered maternal deprivation before the age of five
compared with just 10% of the other group. This work was criticized on the grounds
that it was methodologically flawed, lacking true control groups and with problematic sampling. Bowlby himself later agreed and concluded that it is the formation of the attachment to anyone, not just the mother that was important.
Michael Rutter criticized Bowlbys theory and also conducted his own research. Rutter has come up with alternative explanations in response to the effects proposed by Bowlby.
BOWLBYS PROPOSALS RUTTERS EXPLANATIONS
Intellectual and linguistic retardation Lack of stimulation for child
Affectionless psychopathy Lack of bond during early years
Juvenile delinquency Upset and argument in the home before separation
Depression and apathy as above
Enuresis (bed wetting) stress
Deprivation dwarfism Poor diet
In 1970 Rutter studied boys between 9 and 15 years old. He used a correlation study to investigate the relationship between juvenile delinquency and maternal deprivation through illness and also through family or psychiatric problems. Rutter found that juvenile delinquency was more likely in the boys who had experienced maternal deprivation due to family or psychiatric reasons. Rutter claimed that the reason for separation was much more important then the actual separation itself. When the boys who had been sent away due to illness were reunited with their family, they returned to a stable loving environment and this overcome any negative effects of the separation. This train of thought totally contradicts Bowlbys theory that effects of maternal deprivation are permanent and irreversible. Rutter also criticized the fact that Bowlby used the work of Harlow and his monkeys to support his theories. He claims that Bowlby and Harlow were not studying the same thing; Bowlbys subjects had formed an attachment before separation whereas Harlow’s monkeys had never had any contact with their mother. Therefore Bowlby was studying deprivation whereas Harlow was studying privation which are two very different studies.
Whereas deprivation is the breaking of the bond between the mother and child in the early years, privation is the failure to develop any sort of attachment to any individual. Rutter argued that in the case of Bowlbys 44 thieves study, many of Bowlbys subjects had experienced several changes of home and caregivers during early childhood. Therefore their later problems were due to privation and not deprivation as Bowlby
Amanda Alderson
Access to Healthcare
5th December 2003
had suggested. Rutter claimed that the effects of privation were more detrimental and long lasting than the effects of deprivation.
Mary Ainsworth also sided with Rutter and claimed that it was the quality of the relationship and not the quantity. A study she used to base her theory on was called ‘the strange situation’ (1978). This was based on 8 different episodes with a timescale of 30 seconds to 3 minutes. The table below includes Mary Ainsworths results and conclusions.
Amanda Alderson
Access to Healthcare
5th December 2003
Mary Ainsworth then went on to describe the children from her observations as either securely attached or insecurely attached. The baby’s that were securely attached showed initial shyness; used parents as a safety base before exploring and were able to interact with others. The babies that were insecurely attached clung to parents; were easily distressed; became angry and avoided contact with parent; has difficulty playing and were uninvolved. Ainsworth concluded that there were four main factors in the caregivers’ behaviour that influenced a child’s security. Those behaviours were sensitive/insensitive, accepting/rejecting, co-operate/interfere or accessible/ignoring. Ainsworth suggested that the parents who were sensitive, accepting, who co-operate and are accessible to the child are more likely to have a child with secure attachments. Ainsworth also found that a child could go from insecure to secure and vice versa dependant on outside factors.
Shaffer and Emerson also criticized Bowlbys theory on monotropy, although agreeing that the mother is normally the main caregiver, the child can form strong attachments to several people. This theory would of course include the father. Evidence that a child will form an attachment to the father as well as the mother was obtained by Weston and Main (1981). They used the strange situation procedure (Mary Ainsworth), with 44 infants. The results showed that of these infants, 12 were securely attached to both parents, 11 were securely attached only to the mother, 10 were securely attached on to the father, and 11 were insecurely attached to both parents.
In conclusion Bowlby conducted his studies in the 1950’s which were quite different times from today’s society. The men had just returned from the war and found that most of their employment had been taken up by women during the war. The government funded research into the effects of separation when a mother goes to work and leaves her baby to be looked after by someone else. Whether or not a coincident, mothers were made to feel guilty by the conclusion of Bowlbys studies and many returned to their roles within the home while the men took up employment again. This guilt still holds true to this day, with many mothers feeling guilty over returning to work. Maybe they should read the studies done by Rutter and Ainsworth and use the time spent with their child at weekends as quality time. A child that has a happy, contented parent normally grows up to feel more secure and more likely to converse with and be happy around other adults. Also studies undertaken in different cultures have contradicted Bowlbys theories. In some cultures the mother is not the main caregiver for the child, for example in a kibbutz mothers will go out to work leaving the main job of caring for their child to others.
