... there were a number of criticisms of Bowlby's study of the 44 thieves, some of these were: the data being retrospective, which does reduce its reliability, also Bowlby was wrong to generalise his finding and apply it to children all over the world. The study of Trizard et al (1989) showed that children who were raised away from their supposed prime care giver, i.e. their mother/father had no difference in relation to bonding, compared to children who are raised by their main care giver. He found that both groups of children, the adopted and nursery children both displayed learning difficulties. This study does not support the theory of Bowlby in terms of cognitive development as he believed children who suffered the effects of privation could not be developed as they had missed their window of opportunity to develop, this was not true, both groups of children had a normal cognitive development ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now