Evaluation

• Methodology/Procedure - Weaknesses

  Use of interviews:

  • socially desirable answers
  • mothers may have lied/downplayed the truth to look better

  Unreliable procedure:

  • case study = unsystematic + unplanned
  • hard to replicate

  Researcher bias:

  • Bowlby conducted all assessments himself + diagnosed
  • knew which were thieves, therefore conclusions may be bias
• Methodology/Procedure - Strengths

  Use of control groups:

  • matched on age, IQ, economic status
  • directly compare to thieves in relation to stealing + Separation

  Use of case study:

  • high ecological validity
  • no manipulation of children+ detailed information on children e.g. home life

  Procedures = not artificial:

  • gathered data about children + mothers - no manipulation = real life
• Methodology/Procedure - Conclusions

  • allowed to study real life/natural behaviour
  • BUT issues with validity due to method ( social desirability + researcher bias) + hard to replicate to check for consistent findings
• Findings/Conclusions - Weaknesses

  Social desirability:

  • low internal validity
  • children/mothers may have lied/stretched the truth reducing validity of findings

  Researcher bias:

  • Bowlby may have had expectations which influenced how he interpreted data
  • reduces validity of findings

  Findings = low reliability:

  • carried out in unsystematic + unplanned way
  • patients not participants - published/analysed retrospectively
  • hard to replicate to check the reliability of findings

  Alternative evidence:

  • Bowlby - TB study
  • few long terms consequences for children hospitalised for long periods
• Findings/Conclusions - Strengths

  External validity:

  • case studies + procedure = no manipulation
  • therefore findings have ecological validity - link between separation + delinquency

  Alternative evidence:

  • Ermish and Francesconi - working mums = slower emotional development + lower reading/math scores
  • separation affects development
• Findings/Conclusions - Conclusions

  • findings have ecological validity but limited by unrepresentative sample
  • lack internal validity due to EV's such as social desirability and researcher bias
  • findings from other studies is mixed - maternal separation unlikely to be only factor that affects development
• Ethical/Social implications - Weaknesses

  Psychological harm:

  • mother's distress - embarrassed/sad
  • child's distress - recall separation, etc

  Workplace:

  • suggesting a separation from mum is bad
  • creates guilt for working mums
  • may cause discrimination / stop them from returing to work
  • negative implications for female workplace which could impact economy
• Ethical/Social implications - Strengths

  Health sector:

  • increased visiting time in hospitals
  • parents can stay over in hospitals
  • reduces separation

  Education sector:

  • low child to staff ratio in nurseries = encourages attachments + bonding
  • parenting classes - impact of separation
• Ethical/Social implications - Conclusions

  • hard to judge ethics due to unusual nature of study - patient 1936-9 then data published 1944 so were not taking part in an actual study
  • some important social benefits + increase understanding of primary caregiver relationship but treat with caution