There was a tiny sample and this means it is difficult to generalise outside of the sample as it may not account for everyone, with not 100% link being found, this is more of an issue.
This did however, show that there is a link between separation and emotional development, thus supporting the theory.
It lacked internal validity, being an observation, he had no control and therefore reliability is weak.
Douglas supported the theory, stating that those that had repeated admissions to hospital were likely to have behavioural issues later in life.
There could be experimenter expectancy bias as Bowlby may have acted subjectively when interviewing the participants, they could have also lied about their deprivation, it may be difficult to tell something from such a long time ago.
Comments
No comments have yet been made