Evaluate the methodology of Bowlby’s study: The 44 Juvenile thieves
+ Bowlby’s study collects rich, in-depth data. For example, He used extensive case histories and in-depth interviews with both the children and their families. This provided a large amount of qualitative information about their early attachment relationships. This is a + because it allows us to gain a much greater understanding of the complex issues that may link disrupted attachment to later delinquency. It adds credibility to Bowlby’s theory by offering rich, real world details instead of just numerical data, increasing the internal validity of the study.
Another + is that the study is conducted in a clinical setting, which adds authenticity. For example, all ppts were referred to Bowlby’s clinic due to their behavioural problems,meaning the study directly focuses on children with documented issues related to theft. This is a + because it makes the study particularly relevant for understanding the kind of children who may be most at risk of developing delinquent behaviour following disrupted attachments increasing the internal validity.
However a - is the small and non-representative sample used. For example, Bowlby studied only 44 juvenile thieves from his own clinic in London, showing he used only a small selective sample. This is a - because it means we cannot be sure of his findings can be generalised to all children or all cases of delinquency, reducing the external validity of the study.
Another - is that the methodology also shows signs of gender and cultural bias. For example, Bowlby’s theory and method focused heavily on mothers as primary caregivers, reflecting traditional Western family roles. This is a - because it assumes that only maternal deprivation is damaging, ignoring the role of fathers,siblings or broader social care systems,reducing the cultural validity of the study
Evaluate the procedure of Bolwby’s study: The 44 Juvenile Thieves
+ The procedure was standardised across ppts, adding consistency. For example, Bowlby used the same set of interview questions and case history format with each child and their caregiver. This is a + because this means that the data was collected in a systematic way, reducing variation due to differing interviewing techniques and improving the reliability of the study.
Another + is the use of control group alongside the thieves. For example, Bowlby included a control group of 44 non-delinquent children from the clinic for comparison. This is a + because it allows us to see whether disrupted attachment is more frequently present in thieves than in non delinquent children, increasing the internal validity and adding depth to his conclusions
However a - of the procedure is that it failed to account for other potential causal factors in the children’s delinquency. For example, Bowlby’s study focuses mainly on maternal deprivation and disrupted attachment, ignoring other possible contributing factors such as economic struggles, abuse, parental conflict or peer influences. This is a - because this weakens the internal validity by implying a cause and effect relationship when there may be multiple influencing factors.
Another - is that the study is prone to recall bias and social desirability effects. For example, Bowlby interviewed parents many years after the children’s separations. This is a - since memories may be unreliable due to faulty memories or parents desires to present themselves in a more socially desirable way, decreasing the internal validity
Evaluate the ethics of Bolwby’s study: The 44 Juvenile Thieves
+ parental consent was obtained for the children to participate. For example, since the ppts were minors referred to the child guidance clinic, Bowlby obtained permission from their parents or guardians to conduct interviews and assessments. This is a + because it means the study met the ethical standard of informed consent, ensuring that legal representatives were aware of the nature of the study and agreed to their child’s involvement, which protects ppts rights.
Another - is the risk of psychological harm and long term labelling. For example, some children were labelled by bowlby as ‘affection less psychopaths’ a diagnosis with serious and stigmatising implications. This is a - because these labels could have negatively affected the children’s self-image, treatment by others or future opportunities, increasing the risk of causing them long term psychological harm.
