critisms

• • The evidence that Bowlby (1944) provided was in the form of clinical interviews of, and retrospective data on, those who had and had not been separated from their primary caregiver. This meant that Bowlby was asking the participants to look back and recall separations. These memories may not be accurate.  
• • Bowlby designed and conducted the experiment himself. This may have lead to experimenter bias. Particularly as he was responsible for making the diagnosis of affectionless psychopathy. 
• • The study was vulnerable to researcher bias. Bowlby conducted the psychiatric assessments himself and made the diagnoses of Affectionless Psychopathy. He knew whether the children were in the ‘theft group’ or the control group. Consequently, his findings may have unconsciously influenced by his own expectations. This potentially undermines their validity
• Another criticism of the 44 thieves study was that it concluded affectionless psychopathy was caused by maternal deprivation. This is correlational data and as such only shows a relationship between these two variables. Other external variables, such as family conflict, parental income, education, etc. may have affected the behaviour of the 44 thieves, and not the disruption of the attachment bond. Thus, as Rutter (1972) pointed out, Bowlby’s conclusions were flawed, mixing up cause and effect with correlation. 
• • socially sensitive and unethical as they are not leaving in the state they entered as they now believe that they are psychopaths. Also bringing up sensitive topics

  diagnosed with ap therefore the thical issue is that we are not protecting from psychological harm.
• diagnosed children with a concept he made up and that doesnt exist