Evaluations - A03

• Strength of Bowlby's MD - practical applications of how children looked after in hospitals. EG before Bowlby work children separated from parents during time in hospital and visiting time discouraged, practices in adoption centres very different. However, Bowlby's MD demonstrated even temporary separation do damage to carer-child attachment and emphasises importance of forming monotropic bond. Thus changes made to allow parents see infants during periods of hospitalisation. + adoptive agencies and nurseries priority to place younger children in families ASAP. Thus Bowlby work improved lives.
• Strength of Bowlby's MD - early MD increases emotional vulnerability of individual. Bifulco conducted study on women who experienced deprivation from mothers either due to separation or maternal death. Found 25% experienced depression or anxiety disorder in later life compared to 15% with no experience of separation. Mental health problems greater in women whose loss occurred before age 6. In line with MD hypothesis suggesting person's emotional development and mental health negatively affected later if experience loss of attachment and emotional care as an infant. Thus increases validity.
• Limitation of Bowlby's MD - refuting evidence, Lewis replicated 44 thieves study on larger scale with 500 people. In her sample, maternal separation did not lead to difficulty in forming relationships or criminality. Problem for theory as it suggests effects of MD not consistent and may be other factors that are involved in formation of attachment in later life aside from maternal deprivation. Therefore MD incomplete explanation of attachment behaviours or criminality reducing validity of theory.
• Limitation of Bowlby's MD - proof early development represents sensitive period for formation of attachment rather than critical period. Bowlby used term critical period as he believed prolonged separation during this period lead to problems later in life. Case of Czech twins, twin brothers isolated from age 18 months - 7 years as stepmother kept them locked in cupboard. However when given care of two loving adults, twins fully recovered. Suggests early life represent sensitive period rather than critical period, not only opportunity for important attachments to form. Thus decreases validity.
• Strength of Rutter's institutionalisation - it was an in-depth longitudinal study. For example it provides rich data on how institutionalisation affects intellectual development over time and is not one off snap shot as is the case with lab studies or cross-sectional designs. This helped us understand that early adoption is important in preventing long term damage to intellectual development. This would have not been possible with short term assessment of children. Therefore, increases internal validity of research.
• Strength of Rutter's institutionalisation - enhanced our understanding of effects of institutionalisation and has led to real life applications. For example, orphanages and children's home try to minimise staff turnover and ensure that each carer has small group to look after. Carers in such situations known as key carers, and having key carer means that children have chance to develop normal attachments and avoid disinhibited attachment. Strength as results led to improvements in way children cared for, thus shows research help guide practices and improve lives.
• Limitation of Rutter's institutionalisation - effects on adulthood unclear. For example, Rutter's study followed up fostered and adopted orphans into mid-teens and found lasting effects of living in institutions, especially for those adopted late. However too soon to say whether children suffered short or long term effects. Issue as children who spent longer in institutions just lag behind in ability to form healthy attachments and may catch up as adults. + may be case that early adopted children who show no issues may develop emotional problems later in life. Thus decreases validity.
• Limitation of Rutter's institutionalisation - lack generalisability in understanding impact of institutions on orphans in UK. For example, Romanian orphanages had poor standards of care, especially when forming relationships and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation given to children. Problematic as exceptionally bad conditions in Romanian orphan studies mean findings cannot be applied to understanding impact of institutions on orphans here in UK due to different situational variables that could have impacted children's development. Therefore studies lack external validity.