Attachment - Paper 1

Question 1

Role of father- Schaffer & Emerson (1964)

Answer 1

Traditionally thought infants attach to mothers. Schaffer & Emerson (1964) found most babies attach to mother first (7 months). 3% of cases, was father as 1st sole object of attachment. 27% father was joint 1st object of attachment with the mother. Within a few weeks/months following this ‘primary attachment’, infants formed ‘secondary attachments’ with other family members (father).
75% of infants formed attachment with father by 18 months.

Question 2

Role of father- Grossman (2002).

Answer 2

Longitudinal study looking at both parents’ behaviour & relationship to quality of children’s attachments in teens. Quality of infant attachment with mothers, not fathers, related to attachments in adolescents - father attachment was less important than mothers.
However, quality of fathers’ play with infants related to quality of adolescence attachments- fathers have different role in attachment, more to do
with play & stimulation & less with nurturing & emotional development.

Question 3

Fathers as primary caters- Field (19798).

Answer 3

Filmed 4-month-old babies face-to-face interaction with prim caregiver mothers, 2nd caregiver fathers & prim caregiver fathers (like caregiver mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating & holding infants than 2nd caregiver fathers- part of attachment formation). Shows fathers have potential to be more emotion-focused prim attachment figure if required. Suggests key to attachment relationship is level of responsiveness not gender of the parent.

Question 4

Strengths of role of the father (2).

Answer 4

1) Research in area could benefit fathers aiming granted joint/full
custody. Fathers have unique role to play (Grossman 2002) or can be just as nurturing if take on primary caregiver highlights importance of paternal relationship if courts
asked grant custody of child. Research has important implications.
2) Used to offer advice to parents. Sometimes agonise over decisions about who primary caregiver should be- mothers may feel pressured (stereotypes). Research into role of father used to reassure parents that father can be primary caregiver & have important role in development.

Question 5

Limitations of the role of the father (2).

Answer 5

1) Inconsistent findings role of father because researchers interested in different Q’s. Some interested in fathers’ role as caregiver while others interested in role as primary attachment figure. Problem as psychologists can’t easily answer Q ‘what is the role of the father?’.
2) If fathers have distinct role (Grossman’s study), would expect those without to be different, but aren’t. However
other studies (MacCallum & Golombok (2004)) found children
growing up in single/same-sex parent families don’t develop differently. Grossman’s findings aren’t supported.

Question 6

What is attachment?
How long does it take for attachment to develop?
How do you recognise attachment?

Answer 6

1) A close 2 way emotional bond between 2 individuals in which each individual sees other as essential for emotional security.
2) A few months to develop.
3) Display the following behaviours:
Proximity- stay physically close to those attached to.
Separation distress - distressed when an attachment figure leaves presence.
Secure-base behaviour - when are independent of attachment figures, tend to make regular contact with them- infante regularly return to attachment figure while playing.

Question 7

Caregiver-Infant interactions summary.

Answer 7

Attachment begins with interactions between infants & caregivers. It is responsiveness of the caregiver to infant’s signals that has effects on attachment that they form- hought to have important functions for the child’s social development.
2 types of caregiver-infant interaction: reciprocity & international synchrony.
Brazleton et al (1975) likened it to dance where each partner responds to other’s moves.

Question 8

What is reciprocity?
What is interactions synchrony?

Answer 8

1) Caregiver & infant respond to each others signals & each elicits a response from other ( at 3 months tends to increase).
2) when caregiver & infant reflect both actions & emotions of the other & do this in a coordinated way.

Question 9

What is Meltzoff and Moore’s (1977) study?

Answer 9

Observe beginning of interactional synchrony. Adult make 1/3 facial expressions or 3 distinct gestures. Babies (as young as 2 weeks old) response was filmed & labelled by independent observers. Babies mirrored adults more than chance would predict.

Question 10

What is Isabella et al’s (1989) study?

Answer 10

Observed 30 mothers & infants together & assessed the degree of synchrony & quality of mother-infant attachment.

Question 11

What are the limitations of researching caregiver-infant interactions? (2)

Answer 11

1) Hard to know what is happening when observing infants. Impossible to tell whether imitation or turn taking we see is conscious or deliberate. Means don’t fully know whether behaviours see in caregiver-infant interaction have special meaning.
2) Research into caregiver-infant interaction socially sensitive. If mothers return to work shortly after born, restricts opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony, suggest children may be disadvantaged by particular child-rearing practices & may make some women feel guilty about choices they make or forced to make. Means researchers need think carefully about whether research should be carried out & how findings of work could make people feel.

Question 12

What are the strengths of research into caregiver-infant interactions? (2)

Answer 12

1) Reliability of research produced when studying care giver-infant interactions is high. Observations are generally well controlled procedures & often involve interactions being recorded, videos can be watched again (test-retest reliability and inter-observer reliability). Increases reliability & validity.
2) Good validity. Infants don’t know they’re being studied, not able to change behaviour & can’t show demand characteristics as unaware of what study is about.

Question 13

What is Schaffer and Emerson’s study (1964)?

Answer 13

Aim- investigate formation of early attachments & age they developed emotional intensity & directed to whom.
Method- 60 babies (31 male and 29 female). From Glasgow & majority from working-class families. Babies & mothers visited at home every month for 1st year & again at 18 months, asked mother Q’s about kind of protest babies showed in 7 everyday separation anxiety (how babies protested in 7 everyday separations such as leaving room). Also assessed stranger anxiety (infants anxiety response to unfamiliar adults).
Findings- 25-32 weeks, 50% babies showed superstition anxiety to certain adult (usually mam)- specific attachment. Most interactive & sensitive to infant signals & facial expressions. By 40 weeks, 80% babies specific attachment & 30% displayed multiple.

Question 14

What are Schaffer & Emerson’s Stages of Attachment? (4)

Answer 14

1) Asocial- baby recognising & forming bonds with carers, behaviour towards objects & humans similar. Show some preference for familiar adults, individuals find easier to calm them. Happier in presence of other humans.
2) Indiscriminate (not different towards any one person)- 2-7m. More observable behaviour. Preference people, not objects & recognise & prefer familiar adults. Accept cuddles & comfort, any adult. Don’t show separation anxiety or stranger anxiety.
3) Discriminate- 7m, majority babies start to have: stranger anxiety, separation anxiety (biological mother 65% cases), specific attachment (adult is primary attachment figure).
4) Multiple- Shortly after babies show attachment behaviour towards 1 adult, usually extended attachment behaviour to multiple w other adults ( spend regular time w) - secondary attachments. In study, 29% of children had 2nd attachments within 1 month forming a specific attachment, age of 1, majority infants developed multiple.

Question 15

Strengths of Schaffer & Emerson’s study. (2)
Counter argument?

Answer 15

+
1) Good external validity. Carried out in families’ homes & most of observation (other than stranger anxiety) was done by parents during ordinary activities & reported back to researchers. Means babies behave naturally, parents observe them & not affected by others.
2) Longitudinal study. Same children followed up over 18m of study. No differences in attachment behaviour, would’ve if cross-sections design. Increases internal validity, participant ≠ confounding variables.

+ & -
1) + : Sample- 60 babies & caters. Large sample size & lots of data on each.
- : Despite sample size, all babies studied from same district & social class in same city.

Question 16

Schaffer and Emerson, Stages of Attachment limitations (2).
Counter argument?

Answer 16

1) Problems studying asocial stage. Babies > 2m, poor coordination and & generally immobile. Makes it difficult to make judgements about them based on observations.
2) Mixed evidence when infants develop multiple attachments. Bowlby suggested infants form to 1 main carer before developing multiple. Researchers, studied attachment different cultural contexts where normal have multiple caregivers, argue multiple occur from the outset. Suggests don’t fully understand how develop.

+ & -
1) - : Behaviours used measure attachment are crude. Schaffer & Emerson used stranger & separation anxiety to distinguish stage of attachment infant is in. But involve complex emotions & behaviours than 2 used.
+ : Use of simple behavioural measures allows researchers to scientifically study attachment development.

Question 17

What was Lorenz’z study?

Answer 17

1) Aim: tested imprinting & how goslings attach to caregivers.
2) Procedure: Randomly divided clutch of goose eggs. Half hatch’s with mother (natural environment), other half in incubator- first moving object seen was Lorenz.
3) Findings: Once hatched, followed 1st moving object they saw 13-16 hours after hatching. Icubator group followed Lorenz, control group followed mother. Lorenz marked two groups & placed them together. When 2 groups were mixed, still followed different who they imprinted on- called imprinting.
4) Conclusions: is critical period which imprinting needs to happen. Depending on species can be a few hours after hatching or more. If it doesn’t occur within time, Lorenz found chicks didn’t attach to a mother figure.

Question 18

What did Lorenz discover about sexual imprinting?

Answer 18

Relationship between imprinting & adult mate preference. Birds that imprinted on human often display courtship behaviour towards humans. E.g. peacock reared in reptile house of zoo ( 1st moving objeets seen = giant tortoises) would only display courtship behaviour to giant tortoises. Undergone sexual imprinting.

Question 19

Implications of Lorenz’a study. (3)

Answer 19

1) Organisms have biological propensity to form attachments to 1 single subject. Supports having a biological basis is adaptive & promotes survival. Explain why goslings imprint quickly.
2) Human babies born immobile & less need to form an attachment straight away, develops late: 8-9m.
3) Fact that goslings imprinted irreversibly so early, suggests this was operating within a critical period, which underpinned by biological factors.

Question 20

Limitations or Lorenz’s study? (2)
Strengths of Lorenz’s study? (2)

Answer 20

-
1) not generalisable, animals are born mobile & babies aren’t.
2) Not ethical. Follow 1st they see & imprint sexually, then issues removing birds from mothers.
+
1) measured what it wanted to investigate, attachment in birds.
2) procedure was standardised & replicated by others.

Question 21

What was Haslow’s study?

Answer 21

1) Aim: tested idea a soft object serves some functions of mother, find out importance of contact comfort.
2) Procedure: 1, reared 16 baby monkeys 2 wire model ‘mothers’. In one milk dispensed by plain wire mother, in second by cloth-covered mother. Measured amount time monkeys spent w each surrogate mother & how long cried for biological mother.
3) Findings: found baby monkeys cuddled soft object not wire one & sought comfort from cloth frightened (not bothered about milk). Monkeys willing to explore room full of tovs when cloth-covered present but phobic responses when wire was present.
4) Conclusions: shows ‘contact comfort’ more important to monkeys than food when came to attachment.

Question 22

What did Harlow discover about the maternally deprived monkeys as adults? (3)

Answer 22

1) Those reared with wire mothers only were most dysfunctional. However, even with soft toy as substitute didn’t develop normal social behaviour.
2) More aggressive & less sociable than others & bred less often than is typical, unskilled at mating.
3) As mothers some of deprived monkeys neglected young & others attacked children, even killing in some cases.

Question 23

What did Harlow discover about the critical period, related to development?

Answer 23

Like Lorenz, concluded there was critical period for behaviour. Mother figure had to be introduced to infant within 90 days for attachment to form. After, attachment was impossible & damage done by early deprivation became irreversible.

Question 24

What are Harlow’s implications? (3)

Answer 24

1) Monkey’s willingness seek refuge from something offering comfort (not food) suggests food isn’t as crucial as comfort when forming a bond.
2) Fact isolated monkeys displayed long-term dysfunctional behaviour illustrates early attachment predict long-term social development.
3) Despite fed, isolated monkeys failed develop functional social behaviour, suggests animals have greater needs than just provision of food.

Question 25

What are the strengths of Harlow’s study? (2)
What are the limitations of Harlow’s study? (2)

Answer 25

+
1) Studied 16 monkeys, standardised procedure, results replicated & consistent.
2) Applicable to social workers, understanding risk factors for neglect & abuse.
-
1) Not ethical. Monkeys became dysfunctional & deprived. Went on to neglect & attack children. Couldn’t develop normal social behaviour.
2) More generalisable than Lorenz (monkeys more similar), however still qualitatively different to humans.

Question 26

What is classical conditioning?
What is the explanation of classical conditioning in relation to attachment? (4)

Answer 26

1) Learning through association.
2) - unconditioned stimulus (food) creates an unconditioned response (pleasure) for babies as we don’t have to learn it.
- a neutral stimulus (mother) creates no response.
- unconditioned (food) + neutral (mother) stimulus creates an unconditioned response of pleasure.
- baby learns to associate mother with food, so mother becomes conditioned stimulus which creates a conditioned response of pleasure when baby sees mother.

Question 27

What is operant conditioning?
How does a baby experience positive reinforcement?
How does a caregiver experience negative reinforcement?

Answer 27

1) Learning through consequences. (Positive & megabyte reinforcement.
2) Cry for comfort. Crying is important behaviour in building attachment (leads to response from caregiver). Caregiver provides correct response = crying reinforced. Baby directs crying for comfort towards caregiver who responds comforting ‘social suppressor’ behaviour.
3) The crying stops. Means they’ve “escaped” from unpleasant stimuli, reinforcing behaviour. Interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens attachment.

Question 28

Strengths of the learning theory? (2)

Answer 28

1) Made important contribution to original learning approach.
Hay and Vespo, parents teach babies to live by demonstrating attachment & reinforce by approving babies display of attachment. Means advantage as based on 2 way interaction, baby & adult. Fits better with research into reciprocity.
2) Some elements conditioning involved in attachment behaviour.
Rather than feeding = main US, probable that baby associate feeling warm & comfortable w presence of particular adult, influencing main attachment. Means learning theory may still be useful in understanding development of attachment.

Question 29

Limitations of the learning theory? (2)

Answer 29

1) Counter evidence from human research. Schafferand Emerson (1964), babies form main attachment to mothers regardless of if she usually feeds them or not. Means food isn’t mains factor in formation of human attachments.
2) Invores other factors associated w forming attachments. Quality of attachment appears associated w factors such as reciprocity & good levels of interactional synchrony. Means no point to these complex behaviours of attachment developed only result of feeding.

Question 30

1) What did Bowlby propose after looking at Lotenz/Harlow’s work?
2) What is Bowlby’s evolutionary explanation of attachment?
3) Why did attachment, like imprinting evolve as a mechanism?

Answer 30

1) Evolutionary explanation attachment.
2) Attachment is innate system that gives a survival advantage.
3) Ensures animals stayed close their caregivers for protection.

Question 31

1) What does monotropic mean?
2) Who did Bowlby believe the monotropic bond was with?
3) What is the law of continuity?

Answer 31

1) Mono = ‘one’ & indicates 1 particular attachment is different from all others & of central importance to child’s development.
2) Mother.
3) More constant & predictable a child’s care, better the quality of attachment.

Question 32

1) What is the law of accumulated separation?
2) What did Bowlby believe about amount of time a baby spends with its prim attachment figure?
3) What did Bowlby suggest are the innate set of ‘cute’ behaviours babies are born with?
4) What is the purpose of these ‘social releasers’ behaviour?

Answer 32

1) Effects of every separation from mother added up ‘& safest dose is therefore a zero dose’.
2) More = better.
3) Smiling, cooing and gripping.
4) To activate adult attachment system & make adult feel love towards baby as encourage attention to baby.

Question 33

1) What did Bowlby suggest the attachment process was?
2) What’s meant when said mothers/babies are ‘hard wired’ to become attached?
3) What is the critical period?
4) What is the critical period for humans?

Answer 33

1) It’s a reciprocal process.
2) Mothers & babies have an innate predisposition to become attached.
3) Refers to time within which attachment must form if at all.
4) Around two years.

Question 34

1) What is the sensitive period & what happens?
2) What is on the internal working model?
3) What do loving, reliable relationships w prim caregiver lead to?

Answer 34

1) When child maximally sensitive to developing attachment, but if not formed in this time, can form attachments in future, just much harder.
2) Mental representations that all carry w us our attachment to primary caregiver- important in affecting future relationships as carry our perception of what relationships are like (template).
3) Expectation that all relationships are loving & reliable & individual brings these qualities to relationship.

Question 35

1) What do poor relationships w prim caregiver lead to?
2) What is important about the internal working models?
3) How do internal working models affect parenting?

Answer 35

1) Poor future relationships where is expectation they will receive poor treatment from others & treat others in that way.
2) Affect child’s later ability to be parent themselves.
3) People tend to base parenting behaviour on own experiences of being parented.

Question 36

Strengths of Bowlby’s monotropic theory? (2)

Answer 36

1) Applicable to everyday life. Used to understand why some people suffer from developmental problems later in life. Good- allow people implement strategies for babies (nurseries) to facilitate healthy attachments & help grow best they can.
2) Help in therapeutic settings. Research inspired many psychologists who have specialised in attachment, e.g. Mary Ainsworth. Helped understanding of how & why attach & implications in development.

Question 37

Limitations of Bowlby’s monotropic theory? (2)

Answer 37

1) Contradictory research. Schaffer & Emerson (1964), children begging to form multiple attachments around 10-11m. Disproves Bowlby’s theory that babies attach to just mother.
2) More contradictory research.Rutter (1981)- problems children who suffered privation & deprivation faced due to lack of intellectual stimulation & contact provided by attachments- not lack of attachment itself (Bowlby’s argument).

Question 38

What is the aim of the Strange Situation and what research method is used?

Answer 38

Controlled observation.
To be able to observe key attachment behaviour as a means of assessing the quality of a baby’s attachment to a caregiver.

Question 39

What was the procedure for the Strange Situation? (7)

Answer 39

Ainsworth et al. (1978) conducted 7 steps:
Baby & caregiver enter unfamiliar play room.
1) baby encouraged to explore, test exploration & secure base.
2) stranger comes in, talks to caregiver & approaches baby, test stranger anxiety.
3) caregiver leaves baby & stranger together, test separation & stranger anxiety.
4) caregiver returns & stranger leaves, test reunion behaviour & exploration.
5) caregiver leaves baby alone, test separation anxiety.
6) stranger returns, test stranger anxiety.
7) caregiver returns & reunited with baby, test reunion behaviour.

Question 40

What was Ainsworth’s findings from the Strange Situation? (3)

Answer 40

1) Secure Attachment
2) Insecure-Avoidant Attachment.
3) Insecure-Resistant Attachment.

Question 41

What is Secure Attachment?
What does it involve? (5)

Answer 41

Children explore happily but regularly go to caregiver.
1) Proximity Seeking= moderate.
2) Exploration & Secure Base= moderate.
3) Stranger Anxiety= moderate.
4) Separation Anxiety= moderate.
5) Response to Reunion= easily calmed.

Question 42

What is Insecure-Avoidant Attachment?
What does it involve? (5)

Answer 42

Children explore freely but don’t seek proximity of show secure base behaviour.
1) Proximity Seeking= low.
2) Exploration & Secure Base= high.
3) Stranger Anxiety= low.
4) Separation Anxiety= low.
5) Response to Reunion= ignores.

Question 43

What is Insecure-Resistant Attachment?
What does it involve? (5)

Answer 43

Children seek greater proximity than others & explore less. Show huge stranger & separation distress but they resist comfort when reunited with carer.
1) Proximity Seeking= high.
2) Exploration & Secure Base= low.
3) Stranger Anxiety= high.
4) Separation Anxiety= high.
5) Response to Reunion= hard to calm.

Question 44

Strengths of the Strange Situation? (2)

Answer 44

1) Strongly predicts later development. Attachment type as defined by the Strange Situation is strongly predictive of later development. Babies assessed secure- have better outcomes in many areas, ranging success at school to romantic relationships & friendships when adult. Insecure resistant- worst outcome bullying later childhood (Kokkinos, 2007) & adult mental health problems (Ward et al 2006). Evidence for validity of attachment types as can explain subsequent outcomes.
2) Reliability. Strange Situation shows very good inter-rater reliability as different observers watching the same children agree what attachment type to classify them with. Cuz Strange Situation takes place under controlled conditions & the behavioural categories easy to observe, Bick found agreement on attachment type for 94% of babies tested.

Question 45

Limitations of the Strange Situation? (2)

Answer 45

1) Culture bound. May not have same meaning in countries outside of Western Europe & America. Takahashi (1990) noted that the test doesn’t really work in Japan as mothers are so rarely separated from babies, very high levels of separation anxiety.
2) Temperament. Anxiety may not be main influence on attachment types. Kagan (1982) - temperament, genetically influenced personality of child, is more important influence on behaviour in Strange Situation than attachment. Means temperament may be confounding variable in Strange Situation. Challenges validity of different types of attachment as identified by Strange Situation- procedure may not measure what wanted to.

Question 46

What is the definition of Culture?
What is the definition of Cultural Variations?

Answer 46

1) Norms & values that exist within any group of people.
2) Differences in norms & values that exist between people in different groups.

Question 47

What is van lizendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) aim and procedure?

Answer 47

Aim- Look at proportions of secure & insecure attachments across a range of countries. Looked at differences within same countries to get idea of variations within culture.
Procedure- Meta-analysed 32 studies of attachment where Strange Situation was used to investigate attachment types. Studies from 8 countries; 15 (USA).1990 results from infants.

Question 48

What are van lizendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) findings & conclusions?

Answer 48

Findings- Wide variation between proportions of attachment types in different studies. All countries, secure is most common. Insecure- resistant least common
insecure-resistant
insecure-avoidant
overall. Insecure-avoidant most common in Germany.
Conclusion- Variations between studies within same country were 150% greater than between countries (in USA 1 study found 46% securely compared to another, 90%).

Question 49

What is Simonella et al’s (2014) aim and procedure?

Answer 49

Aim- Conducted study in Italy, see whether proportions of babies of different attachment types stil
match found previously.
Procesure- They assessed 76 12-month-old infants using the strange situation.

Question 50

What are Simonella et al’s (2014) findings and conclusions?

Answer 50

Findings- They found 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant- lower rate of secure than has been found in may other studies.
Conclusions- Researchers suggest as increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours & use professional childcare. Findings suggest cultural changes can make dramatic difference to patterns of secure & insecure attachment.

Question 51

What is Jin et al’s (2012) aim and procedure?

Answer 51

Aim- Conducted study to compare proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies.
Procedure- The Strange Situation used to assess 87 children.

Question 52

What are Jin et al’s (2012) findings?

Answer 52

Overall proportions of insecure & secure children similar to those in most countries, most infants secure. More of those classified as insecurely attached, resistant & only 1 avoidant. Distribution similar to distribution of attachment types found in Japan (van ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg).

Question 53

What are the conclusions about Cultural Variations in Attachment? (4)

Answer 53

1) Secure is norm in wide range of cultures (universal).
2) Attachment is innate & universal.
3) Cultural practices have an influence on attachment types.
4) Changes in culture have impact on attachment types that are formed.

Question 54

What’s a strength and limitation of cultural variations of attachment?

Answer 54

Strength- Posada & Jacobs (2011) note is lot of evidence to support idea of underlying principles of attachment. E.g. China, Colombia & Germany all support idea maternal sensitivity leads to secure attachment. Cross-cultural research therefore led to development of universal principles of attachment. Even though expression of maternal sensitivity & behaviours found in securely attached children may vary across cultures, core concepts are same.
Limitation- findings based on countries, not cultures. Van lizendoom & Sagi (2001) examined attachment in Tokyo & found similar distribution of attachment types to Western studies, but more rural sample found increase in insecure-resistant individuals. Results highlight variations within 1 country. Provides support to Van ljzendoom & Kroonenberg’s original claim, is more variation within than between cultures & suggests cultural variations may not be comparing cultures after all.

Question 55

What is a strength and limitation of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg?

Answer 55

Strength- uses large samples, nearly 2000 babies. Increases internal validity, reduces impact of anomalous results & adds weight to conclusions drawn- differences in culture.
Limitation- ethical consideration of the strange situation.

Question 56

What is a strength and limitation of Simonella et al?

Answer 56

Strength- is none.
Limitation- doesn’t show similar findings to other studies.

Question 57

What is a strength and limitation of Jin et al?

Answer 57

Strength- similar findings to other studies, improved reliability (same as 1).
Limitation- ethical considerations of strange situation & sample size not as large as VI & K.

Question 58

What’s the definition of maternal deprivation?

Answer 58

Emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their mother/mother substitute.

Continuous care from a mother was essential for a normal psychological development.

Question 59

What did Bowlby say affectionless psychopathy was?

Answer 59

The inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others. Prevents person developing normal relationships & is associated with criminality.
Affectionless psychopaths can’t appreciate feelings of victims & lack remorse for actions.

Question 60

Bowlby’s 44 Thieves:
Aim?
Procedure?
Findings?
Conclusion?

Answer 60

Aim- To examine link between affectionless psychopathy & maternal deprivation.
Procedure- • 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing. ‘thieves’ interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (lack of attention, guilt about actions & empathy for victims). Families also interviewed to established whether had been prolonged early separations from mothers. Control group of non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people used.
Findings- 14/44 thieves could be described ‘affectionless psychopaths.’ 12/14 ‘affectionless psychopaths’ had experienced prolong separation from mothers in first 2 years of life. 2/44 controls experienced long separations.
Conclusion- that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.

Question 61

Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study Limitations (2)?

Answer 61

1) Small sample size,1950’s, children in 1940’s (during war). Specific point in history so different specific experience. Not generalisable.
2) Conducted interviews himself, bias? Reduces validity x