Bowlby's mother deprivation hypothesis

snorlax

what are people's views on Bowlby's mother deprivation hypothesis? i came across it when going back over my developmental psychology notes and was curious to see if other people have views on it's validity in modern society.

Bowlby's theory implies that infants who are deprived of care of responsive and sensitive carers during their early years will be forever emotionally scarred. do you believe his suggestion that sensitive care giving is as important as are vitamins and proteins for a child's healthy physical and psychological development?

for more info http://www.socialpc.com/Psychology/Bowlbys-Deprivation.html

ST*

Good thread Snorlax. Yes I do believe that early years are the most important to any human being. its during this stage of their lives that they develop personality, attitudes, begin forming opinions based on their own perceptions, and above all communicative and social skills.

It is crucial that great care is taken during these years, and if it is a case where both parents are working outside of the home, it is of the utmost importance to choose the best possible carer for your children.

Eoghan-psych

snorlax wrote:

Bowlby's theory implies that infants who are deprived of care of responsive and sensitive carers during their early years will be forever emotionally scarred.

This is one of the reasons I never liked developmental stuff -

How deprived? Of what? For how long?
What's responsive? What's sensitive?
What's a carer? How early?
How scarred? How long is forever?

I could brush off the vagueness as being down to you paraphrasing for the purposes of the post, but I've suffered through enough developmental stuff to know you've added little if any squishyness.

We're proabably all familiar to some extent with the story of Genie - *that* is deprivation, *that* is emotional scarring.

snorlax

developmental psychology is a bit deterministic, it is very useful for my profession in trying to understand sequencing of development, what stage occurs first etc etc like in the case of Piaget, when kids should be engaging in constructional play etc (play is fascinating in itself to study, as it is the chief occupation of childhood so it is used by many therapists to access a child's ability ).

although some parts of his cognitive phases aren't conclusive in that they sometimes occur at different times then he originally stated, when devising a treatment/ intervention program or running various assessments on kids with anything form Dyspraxia to DVD it is useful to know typical development patterns.
Eoghan did you not find Vygotsky's theory of moral development interesting?!;)

wexhun

This is one that I have a personal battle with, Bowlby's theory implies that infants who are deprived of care of responsive and sensitive carers during their early years will be forever emotionally scarred.
I am convinced that I am living proof of this arguement and have discussed it at length with various therapists as I had a difficult childhood and am now only coming to terms with it.
I too think the early years are the most important, I see it in my own kids now is the time they are developing their language skills, their social skills, learning right from wrong, learning about feelings and emotions. That is why I feel it is my duty as a mother to be sensitive to their needs and rerspond to them at whatever level I can possible. I am fortunate enough to be in a situation where I can stay at home with my children at IMO this crucial time. They are young enough to be only influenced by me, when they start school they will be influenced by their friends/peers/teachers so I have to give them the foundations on which to build. Don't get me wrong I am by no means Mary Poppins, I suffered with severe post natal depression after my kids births and I still worry how this may have effected them. Anyway in summary I agree with this theory as I beleive that I have been left emotionally scarred.

Eoghan-psych

snorlax wrote:

Eoghan did you not find Vygotsky's theory of moral development interesting?!;)

Thinking back, and assuming I'm not confluffing things, Vygotsky's core ideas would appear to be naive, somewhat vague formulations of current behavioural approaches couched in cognitive language.

As I understand, the basic notion is that the child interacts with a community, and picks up a basic set of skills - typically in the form of rules in the initial stages. These then become more flexible, and become internalised. Maximal development is only possible through extensive contact with others. The account can readily be translated into a behavioural framework [which renders it much more useful] just by cleaning up the fluffy language.

Now, I could be thinking of some entirely different developmental approach, so this post might be utter nonsense. Such is life at quarter to five in the morning.

My boyfriend spent the first 6 months of his life in hospital, he could only be visited at the most once a week and his mother says that the nurses never gave him enough attention because they were too busy.
I think she is scarred from the whole expierence, she clings to him, but I don't think he has been in anyway ill-effected, he is very much in touch with his emotions.
Although I do think it set back his rate of devolpment as he was 2 going on 3 before he walked and talked.

Dr. Octagon

I'm going to go a little off subject here, I think that many people use the concept of being "scarred For life" as a protection blanket. They allow themselves to recall some bad event or period and blame that on their weak-willed behaviour. I think that anything can be overcome with a little positive thought, determination and strength of mind. However many take the easy option of not performing at their best and blaming this weakness on a convient mental excuse or scar.

What measures of personal strength are there?