Discuss Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation as an explanation of developmental difficulties.

Question 10 Mark Scheme

Discuss Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation as an explanation of developmental difficulties.

[16 marks]

What is expected in the answer?

The command word “discuss” requires students to explain Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation and then evaluate how successfully deprivation explains later intellectual, emotional and social difficulties. For 16 marks, students should explain the critical period, prolonged or accumulated separation and predicted consequences, then consider research support, contradictory evidence, the distinction between deprivation and privation, practical implications and socially sensitive issues.

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation is explicitly required by the current specification.

Marks for this question: AO1 = 6, AO3 = 10

The June 2023 examination included a 16-mark maternal deprivation question with a scenario, which allocated AO1 = 6, AO2 = 4 and AO3 = 6.  As this version contains no application requirement, an appropriate 16-mark allocation is AO1 = 6 and AO3 = 10.

Level	Marks	Description
4	13–16	Knowledge of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation and the proposed developmental difficulties is accurate and generally well detailed. Discussion is thorough and effective, with research evidence and theoretical, practical and/or socially sensitive issues clearly related to the theory. The answer is clear, coherent and focused, with effective use of specialist terminology.
3	9–12	Knowledge of maternal deprivation is evident but there may be occasional inaccuracies or omissions. Discussion is mostly effective and relevant evidence is used appropriately, although some points may lack development.
2	5–8	Limited knowledge of maternal deprivation is present. The response is mainly descriptive and discussion is only partly effective. Research may be described without clearly relating it to Bowlby’s explanation of developmental difficulties.
1	1–4	Knowledge is very limited or muddled. There may be confusion between deprivation and privation or between maternal deprivation and Bowlby’s monotropic theory. Discussion is limited, poorly focused or absent.
0	0	No relevant content.

Indicative content

AO1: Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

Credit relevant knowledge such as:

• Bowlby argued that normal psychological development depends on a child having a close relationship with a mother figure.

• Maternal deprivation occurs when this important relationship is disrupted through prolonged or repeated separation.

• Bowlby believed the effects were particularly serious if deprivation occurred during an early critical period.

• Accumulated periods of separation could also have damaging effects.

• Prolonged deprivation during the critical period was proposed to result in later developmental difficulties.

The June 2023 mark scheme identifies the absence of a mother figure, the critical period and prolonged or accumulated separation as central features of the theory.

Critical period

Credit relevant explanation such as:

• Bowlby proposed that there is an early critical period during which continued attachment to a mother figure is particularly important.

• Disruption during this period was believed to place the child at greater risk of long-term developmental difficulties.

• The earlier and more prolonged the deprivation, the more serious the possible consequences.

• Bowlby viewed some consequences as potentially long-lasting if adequate care was not restored.

The 2023 examiner report identifies the risks associated with missing the critical period as a central feature of strong answers.

Developmental difficulties

The June 2023 mark scheme explicitly identifies several possible consequences of maternal deprivation.

Intellectual development

Credit points such as:

• Prolonged deprivation may result in reduced intellectual development.

• This may be reflected in lower IQ or poorer cognitive development.

• Disruption to early caregiving may therefore affect educational and intellectual outcomes.

Emotional development

Credit points such as:

• Maternal deprivation may result in later emotional difficulties.

• Children may experience difficulties developing close or trusting relationships.

• An impaired internal working model may contribute to later relationship problems where made relevant to maternal deprivation.

The 2023 examiner report specifically notes that stronger responses successfully linked maternal deprivation to an impaired internal working model and continuity hypothesis.

Delinquency

Credit relevant knowledge such as:

• Bowlby associated early maternal deprivation with an increased risk of delinquent or antisocial behaviour.

• Problems in emotional development may make successful social relationships and regulation of behaviour more difficult.

Affectionless psychopathy

Credit relevant knowledge such as:

• Bowlby proposed that severe early deprivation could contribute to affectionless psychopathy.

• This is characterised by an inability to show normal affection or concern for other people.

• It may include limited guilt or empathy.

• Bowlby linked this emotional disturbance with later antisocial or delinquent behaviour.

Reduced IQ, emotional problems, delinquency and affectionless psychopathy are all explicitly identified as consequences in the June 2023 mark scheme.

AO3: Discussion and evaluation

Bowlby’s 44 juvenile thieves provide supporting evidence

A strength of the theory is evidence from Bowlby’s research with juvenile thieves.

The June 2023 mark scheme explicitly identifies Bowlby’s 1944 research as evidence that can be used to support the proposed effects of deprivation, and the examiner report notes that successful students commonly used the 44 juvenile thieves study in discussion.  

The association between early prolonged separation and later affectionless or delinquent behaviour is consistent with Bowlby’s prediction that disruption of the maternal relationship can have lasting emotional consequences.

However, an association between early separation and later developmental difficulties does not by itself demonstrate that deprivation caused those difficulties. Other adverse childhood experiences could contribute to both.

Therefore, the study supports Bowlby’s theory but cannot establish a simple causal pathway from maternal deprivation to delinquency.

Bowlby may have confused deprivation with privation

One of the most important criticisms comes from Rutter.

The June 2023 mark scheme explicitly identifies Bowlby’s failure to distinguish between deprivation and privation as a limitation.

• Deprivation involves losing or being separated from an attachment that has already formed.

• Privation involves failing to form an attachment in the first place.

This distinction matters because some children used as evidence for maternal deprivation may have experienced extremely poor early care and never formed a secure attachment at all.

Their developmental difficulties may therefore be caused by privation or wider institutional conditions, rather than separation from an established mother figure.

This weakens maternal deprivation as a complete explanation.

Romanian orphan research provides qualified support

Research into Romanian adoptees shows that severe early institutional care can be associated with substantial developmental difficulties.

The English and Romanian Adoptees research found that children who spent longer in deprived institutional conditions showed problems including:

• delayed intellectual development

• delayed language

• disinhibited attachment

• difficulties in social development.

This broadly supports Bowlby’s claim that seriously inadequate early care can affect later development.

However, the evidence is not a clean test of maternal deprivation because many institutionalised children may have experienced privation, poor physical care and many other forms of deprivation simultaneously.

The research therefore supports the broader importance of early caregiving but does not necessarily support Bowlby’s precise claim that separation from a mother figure is the main cause.

Recovery challenges irreversible effects

A major limitation is evidence that developmental difficulties following early deprivation are not always permanent.

The 2023 mark scheme identifies evidence suggesting that deprivation effects may be reversible or not necessarily long-term, including the Romanian orphan studies and Koluchova’s Czech twins.

The Czech twins experienced extremely poor early care but later showed substantial recovery after being placed in a supportive environment.

Likewise, Romanian orphan research suggests that earlier adoption into good-quality care is associated with better outcomes. The 2024 mark scheme notes that adequate aftercare can overcome some early difficulties and suggests that the critical period may be better understood as a sensitive period.

This challenges the most deterministic interpretation of Bowlby’s theory.

The critical period may be a sensitive period

Bowlby’s theory places considerable importance on a critical early period.

However, recovery following later sensitive and stable care suggests that the consequences of early deprivation are not necessarily fixed.

A more appropriate interpretation may therefore be a sensitive period, where early relationships are especially important but later development remains possible.

This means Bowlby was probably correct to stress the importance of early experience, but may have overstated the inevitability and permanence of its consequences.

Goldfarb provides supporting evidence

The June 2023 mark scheme identifies Goldfarb as another source of evidence relevant to maternal deprivation.

Research comparing children with different early care experiences has been used to support the suggestion that prolonged institutional care is associated with poorer intellectual and social outcomes.

However, institutional care involves many possible confounding factors. Children may experience:

• low levels of stimulation

• poor nutrition

• high staff turnover

• few opportunities for individual interaction.

Therefore, poor development cannot automatically be attributed specifically to maternal separation.

The theory may be socially sensitive

Maternal deprivation theory is socially sensitive because of the implications it can have for parents, particularly mothers.

If developmental difficulties are attributed to separation from a mother figure, mothers may be made to feel responsible for later problems experienced by their children.

The June 2023 mark scheme explicitly identifies social sensitivity and gender bias as relevant discussion.  The examiner report also notes that socially sensitive implications were used effectively by stronger students.

This criticism is particularly important if the theory is interpreted as requiring the biological mother herself to provide continuous care.

A more appropriate interpretation is that good-quality continuous care can be supplied by a reliable mother substitute or other attachment figure.

Possible gender bias

Bowlby’s emphasis on maternal care could reinforce traditional assumptions that women should remain responsible for childcare.

This may underestimate:

• fathers

• adoptive parents

• other caregivers

• high-quality substitute care.

If a child can develop normally with a consistent and responsive alternative caregiver, then the key variable may be continuity and quality of care, rather than the sex or biological relationship of the caregiver.

The 2023 mark scheme explicitly accepts gender bias as a discussion point.

Practical applications are a major strength

Whatever the limitations of the original theory, Bowlby’s work had important practical implications.

The 2023 mark scheme identifies implications for institutional care as relevant evaluation, and the examiner report notes that stronger responses discussed the multiple practical applications of maternal deprivation research.  

The theory helped emphasise the importance of:

• consistent caregiving

• emotional rather than merely physical care

• minimising unnecessary prolonged separation

• stable foster or adoptive placements

• continuity of caregivers in institutions.

This gives the theory substantial practical value because it changed how developmental difficulties following disrupted early care were understood.

Methodological evaluation must be linked to the theory

Students can evaluate studies used to support or challenge Bowlby, but generic comments such as “the sample was small” or “it lacked ecological validity” are not enough.

The June 2023 mark scheme explicitly states that methodological evaluation is only creditworthy when it is linked back to maternal deprivation.

For example:

institutional studies contain many confounding variables → poor development cannot be attributed specifically to separation from a mother figure → therefore the evidence provides only limited support for Bowlby’s causal explanation.

That is much stronger than simply identifying a methodological weakness.

Example answer

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation proposes that prolonged or repeated separation from an important mother figure during early childhood can interfere with normal psychological development. Bowlby believed that there was a critical early period during which continuous attachment was particularly important.

Maternal deprivation refers to disruption of an attachment relationship rather than simply spending a short time away from the caregiver. Bowlby also argued that repeated periods of separation could accumulate and have harmful effects. If serious deprivation occurred during the critical period, he believed it could lead to long-term intellectual, emotional and social difficulties.

One predicted consequence is reduced intellectual development, including lower IQ. Bowlby also suggested that deprivation could cause emotional difficulties and problems forming later relationships. A particularly severe outcome was affectionless psychopathy, where a person has difficulty showing affection, guilt or concern for others. This could contribute to later delinquent or antisocial behaviour.

There is evidence supporting the theory from Bowlby’s research with juvenile thieves. Early prolonged separation was associated with later affectionless and delinquent behaviour. This is consistent with the prediction that disruption of early attachment can have long-term emotional consequences. However, the research shows an association rather than proving that maternal deprivation caused the later behaviour. Children who experienced prolonged separations may also have experienced other forms of adversity that contributed to their difficulties.

A more serious criticism was made by Rutter, who argued that Bowlby did not distinguish adequately between deprivation and privation. Deprivation means losing an attachment that has already formed, whereas privation means failing to form an attachment at all. This matters because children raised in severely deprived institutions may never have formed a secure attachment in the first place. Their later difficulties therefore cannot necessarily be explained by separation from an existing mother figure.

Research with Romanian adoptees provides some support for the general importance of early care. Children who remained longer in severely deprived institutions were more likely to experience intellectual, language, social and attachment difficulties. This is consistent with Bowlby’s argument that inadequate early relationships can affect development.

However, the Romanian evidence also challenges an overly deterministic version of the theory. Children adopted earlier into supportive families generally showed better recovery, and some children were able to overcome substantial early difficulties. This suggests that early childhood may be a sensitive period rather than a completely fixed critical period after which recovery is impossible.

Evidence from Koluchova’s Czech twins provides a similar challenge. Despite extreme difficulties in their early lives, the twins showed considerable recovery after receiving good-quality care. This suggests that developmental problems following early deprivation are not necessarily permanent. The later caregiving environment can influence the outcome.

Another limitation is that studies of deprived or institutionalised children often involve many different forms of adversity. Institutionalised children may experience poor stimulation, low-quality physical care and frequent changes of caregiver as well as a lack of attachment. If they later show low IQ or emotional difficulties, it is difficult to conclude that separation from a mother figure was specifically responsible.

The theory is also socially sensitive. Its emphasis on maternal care could lead mothers to feel responsible for later problems if they return to work or if separation occurs. It may also underestimate the importance of fathers and other caregivers. The important factor may be stable and responsive caregiving rather than care from the biological mother herself.

Despite this, the theory has had important practical value. It drew attention to the emotional needs of children in hospitals and institutions and encouraged greater continuity of care. Stable foster and adoptive placements can reduce prolonged disruption and provide children with consistent attachment figures.

Overall, Bowlby was influential in showing that severe disruption of early relationships can be associated with intellectual, emotional and social difficulties. However, deprivation alone does not explain every poor developmental outcome. Bowlby underestimated the distinction between deprivation and privation and may have overstated the permanence of early damage. Later high-quality care can allow substantial recovery, so maternal deprivation is best seen as an important risk factor rather than an inevitable cause of developmental difficulties.

Indicative mark: 16/16

Examiner-style commentary

This would be a strong Level 4 response because the student remains focused on maternal deprivation specifically as an explanation of developmental difficulties.

The AO1 covers the material identified in the June 2023 mark scheme:

• prolonged or accumulated separation from a mother figure

• the critical period

• reduced intellectual development

• emotional problems

• delinquency

• affectionless psychopathy.

The AO3 then addresses whether maternal deprivation actually explains those outcomes:

• the 44 juvenile thieves provide supporting evidence;

• Rutter’s distinction between deprivation and privation challenges Bowlby’s interpretation;

• Romanian orphan research supports the importance of early care but also demonstrates potential recovery;

• Koluchova’s twins challenge claims of irreversible long-term damage;

• socially sensitive and gender-biased implications are considered;

• practical applications to institutional and substitute care demonstrate the theory’s usefulness.

This closely reflects the examiner report for the June 2023 maternal deprivation question. Examiners found that students were generally well prepared, with stronger answers focusing on the critical period, accumulated separation and developmental consequences. Effective evaluation used the 44 juvenile thieves, Romanian orphan research, Koluchova’s twins, social sensitivity and practical applications.

One particularly useful warning from the report is that some students gave excessive detail about research studies and lost focus on the actual question.  For a 16-mark essay, research should be used as evidence in an argument, not retold at length.

How a weaker answer could be improved

A weaker answer might write several pages about the 44 thieves and Romanian orphans but give little explanation of Bowlby’s theory.

A stronger approach is:

Bowlby claim → developmental consequence → evidence → implication for the theory.

For example:

maternal deprivation during an early critical period causes lasting emotional difficulties → Bowlby found an association between early separation and affectionless behaviour → supports the theory → but correlational evidence cannot establish that separation was the cause.

Or:

Bowlby predicted lasting damage → children exposed to severe early adversity can recover following high-quality later care → the effects are not necessarily irreversible → a sensitive period may be more accurate than a strict critical period.

The central distinction students should remember is also:

deprivation = loss of an existing attachmentprivation = failure to form an attachment

Confusing these two can seriously weaken evaluation because Rutter’s criticism is one of the most important challenges to Bowlby’s explanation.