Classic evidence- Bowlby evaluation Flashcards
Methodology and procedure- No causal findings?
Although there was a conclusion that prolonged separation causes delinquency
We can’t be 100% certain that finding a relationship means that one thing causes another
Methodology and procedure- No causal findings- can we reverse the causation?
The child’s personality
-An event that the child shows towards the parent causing a divide in relationship and mother not forming a bond and separating from child
Methodology and procedure- No causal findings- is there a 3rd factor that could account for both affectionless children and prolonged separation?
-Divorce
-Work
-Hospitalisation could cause separation
Methodology and procedure- Biased data- ecological validity?
Strength
In depth and qualitative
Great deal of info about the child
High ecological validity as investigation was done in real life setting and no manipulation needed
Methodology and procedure- Biased data, validity?
A weakness
Researcher bias as bowlby conducted psychiatric evaluations himself
No interrater reliability
Conclusion subjective to interpretations
Methodology and procedure- Bias, double blind?
Weakness
Bowlby knew who was in the control group and the regular group
No use of double blind, as bowlby already concluded his theory of material deprivation, he may have over reported incidents of separation from mother in the thief group and underreported in control to fit the hypothesis
Methodology and procedure- Bias, social desirability?
Weakness
Data collected retrospective, some parents asked to recall things from 14 years earlier, meaning data may not be accurate
Parents may not have answered accurately to put in better light which is social desirability
Methodology and procedure- Bias reliability?
Weakness
Cannot be repeated, so lack validity as people can’t check Bowlby’s findings to see accuracy therefore can’t see if findings are valid
Methodology and procedure- Bias, difference between deprivation and privation?
Weakness
Bowlby didn’t distinguish the difference between the two
Deprivation- loss of existing attachment
Privation- complete lack of an attachment bond
Further research shows these two have different effects on children
Methodology and procedure- Sample?- representative
The sample wasn’t representative as it can’t be generalised to anyone else as the sample consisted thieves who had been caught stealing
-Meaning people in control group could have stolen but havent been caught, this means it can be inaccurate
-Control group also suffered emotional issues so can’t draw conclusion as they don’t represent ‘normal’ child
Who is our 2 alternative evidence?
-Rutters romanian orphans
-Robertson & Robertson 1971 The case study of john
Alternate evidence- Rutters romanian orphans, what is this study about?
Due to ww2 the population went down, Romania therefore banned contraceptives and abortions
100,000 children were left in care. People who grew up in orphanage couldn’t remember anything except living in orphanage
Results of rutters romanian orphans?
> First arieved in UK- Half of the adoptees showed signs of mental disabilitys and undernourished
Assesed age 4 and 6
At age 11 assesed
Those adopted before age 6 moths- IQ level 102
6 months-2yrs- 86
2years+- 77
Assesed again at 15
Conclusion of rutters romanian orphans?
-The longer in orphanage the lower the iq and the rate of recovery
-Children adopted younger than 6 months developed normally but more than that showed unattachment
Rutters romanian orphans and bowlby?
Bowlby may have muddled together factors
Separation alone and not have caused long lasting damage especially if there was a good substitute for emotional care
