A weakness of the maternal deprivation hypothesis?

-Crticised for not making the distinction clear between deprivation and privation -Rutter (1981) drew important distinction between 2 types of early negative experience. Deprivation refers to the loss of the primary attachment figure after the attachment has developed. Privation is the faliure to form any attachment in the first place - may take place when children are brought up in institutional care. Rutter pointed that the long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is more likley to be the results of privation -So children studied by Goldfarb may have been 'prived' instead of deprived. Similar to the children in 44 thieves study who had disruption in their real lives and may never had formed strong attachments. -Means that Bowlby might have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in children's development.