#44 thieves

[sim-with-the-stars]

why did bowlby need 44 thieves? isn't that a bit greedy? i think 43 should suffice

[revisewithannie]

Psychology: Child: Bowlby [1944], 44 Juvenile Thieves

Background

In 1938, 9/10 crimes were thefts, and half of them were committed by someone aged under 21- over a sixth were by children under 14! There was also a recurrence of crimes- a third of 16 year olds in court had been charged before... 

Bowlby realised it would be useful to look at youthful stealing, and how early delinquency starts. He claimed that "almost all recent work on the emotional and social development of children has laid emphasis upon the child's relationship to his or her mother. 

He spoke to mothers and found their love for their child may be only one aspect of the relationship: "often an intense though perhaps un-admitted dislike and rejection of him [the child] also came to light".

A large proportion of juvenile delinquents had had long periods away from home, which might be a factor, as well as possible  traumatic experiences in early childhood. These were the sorts of issues that Bowlby focusses on in his study, working within the psychodynamic approach. 

Aims

To test the maternal deprivation hypothesis, which associated early separation with a risk of behavioural disorders, especially affectionless psychopathy. 

Procedure

The study was carried out at the London Child Guidance Clinic from 1936-1939. Bowlby gathered various kinds of data using interviews, case studies & psychological testing to try to look for patterns in the backgrounds of young people at his clinic, in an attempt to establish why some would become delinquents. 

44 cases were studied, and there was a control group of 44 children who weren't thieves but who also attended the Clinic- they were matched for age and intelligence with the 44 thieves, but were also maladjusted. Bowlby said he would've preferred some ordinary children too. 

There were various ways in which a child was assessed when he/she first came into the clinic. A psychologist carried out mental tests to assess intelligence, as well as undertaking an assessment of the child's emotional attitudes towards the test. A social worker noted a preliminary psychiatric history. This all lasted about an hour. 

The social worker & psychologist gave reports to the psychiatrist [Bowlby] who then interviewed first the child and then the mother, which took another hour. A case conference followed, and a tentative diagnosis was formed. 

Often more interviews followed, along with psychotherapy and the mother talking further to the social worker, so more in-depth data were gathered. 

Only a few cases were studied because of the depth required, like finding out about the emotional influenced within the home, which affect the development of the child's object relationships. Bowlby admitted that more such studies were needed to substantiate the findings of his study. 

Results

Bowlby separated the children in to 6 groups: normal, depressed, circular, hyperthermic, affectionless & schizoid. The main category for the study was affectionless. 

2 of the 44 children were normal. 42 therefore had abnormal characters. 

Bowlby drew his conclusions mainly from discussions with the mother and school because they thought that children were on their best behaviour during the psychiatric examination and so hid things. 

14 of the 44 had an affectionless character, a lack of affection of warmth of feeling for anyone. They had been undemonstrative and unresponsive from infancy. There is a lack of normal affection, shame, or sense of responsibility. The children lied, stole, and has no sense of loyalty, emotional ties, or friendship. 

Bowlby thought the affectionless character was depressive in earlier life, and had suffered complete emotional loss of mother or foster mother during infancy and early childhood. 

The affectionless children tended to be thieves of the highest degree.

There were 0 affectionless characters in the control group. 

Out of the 14 affectionless thieves, 86% had experiences early and prolonged separation. 

17% of the other 30 delinquents had. 

4% of the control group had. 

Conclusion

Bowlby linked the affectionless character with a lack of attachment and some strong emotional loss in infancy. 

The findings suggest a link between early separation and later social and emotional maladjustment. In it's most sever form, maternal deprivation leads to affectionless psychopathy. 

Evaluation

+ The applications are good- they recognise the causes which could lead to earlier/better intervention and potential help/solutions. 

+ There is validity in that the data were in depth, detailed, and both qualitative & quantitative, gathered from many sources with many methods. 

+ There weren't ethical issues- there appears to have been adherence to relevant guidelines. 

+ The matched control of similar children offers comparison, strengthening results. It's replicable because of the controls. 

- It's not entirely replicable because interviews, case histories and psychotherapy are individual to the case. 

- There are issues with validity. He overlooked areas of interest such as the relationship with the father & relatives, and school experience. The data on separation was collected retrospectively, and may not have been recalled accurately. Self-report data can be inaccurate. We don't know other factors, like the quality of substitute care during separation. Demand characteristics.

- All the children studied had problems, even the control group. Bowlby admitted he would've liked a control of normal children, and they were all from the same clinic. Not generalisable. 

- The environment was artificial- ecological validity.