IB Psychology HLTopic 2 — Development of the SelfPaper 1 & 2Key study~10 min read
What Happens When Attachment Is Missing
If attachment really is survival equipment, then losing it should leave marks. That is exactly what Bowlby set out to show — and the study he used to show it is one of the most quoted, and most criticised, in developmental psychology.
📘 What you need to know
Lack of attachment happens when a child never gets the chance to attach, or when an existing bond is broken by separation.
Bowlby (1953) called the second case maternal deprivation.
Consequences can be emotional and intellectual: delayed literacy, anti-social behaviour, depression, impulsivity.
The damage is mainly caused by the absence of emotional care, not just the absence of a person.
Lack of attachment is a risk factor for criminality — a risk factor, not a cause.
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944) is the key research.
The big criticism: Bowlby may have confused deprivation with privation.
Deprivation is not the same as privation
This distinction wins marks, and it is the single sharpest criticism of the 44 thieves study. Keep the two words apart by asking one question: was there ever a bond?
Draw this in two seconds in an exam and the criticism writes itself: the 44 thieves had disrupted early lives, so some of them may have been privated rather than deprived.
Key study: Bowlby’s 44 thieves (1944)
🧩 The study in four steps
Aim — to investigate the social, emotional and psychological effects of maternal deprivation.
Participants — an opportunity sample of 88 children from a Child Guidance Clinic in London, all categorised as emotionally maladjusted. 44 had been accused of theft; the other 44, with no history of theft, formed the control group.
Procedure — participants were interviewed for signs of being an affectionless psychopath: Bowlby’s term for behaviour that lacks empathy, is callous and cruel, and has no sense that actions have consequences. Families were also interviewed to find out whether the thieves had experienced prolonged separation from their caregivers — for example repeated stays in hospital or foster homes with few family visits.
Conclusion — prolonged, early separation from caregivers is linked to affectionless psychopathy.
Also worth quoting: 40% of the whole thieves group had experienced early separation from their caregivers, against 5% of the control group.
Get the numbers the right way round. The 86% describes only the 14 children classified as affectionless psychopaths — not all 44 thieves. Students who blur this end up claiming something the study never found.
Evaluating the effects of lack of attachment
Strengths
Supported by later research. Women who had been separated from their mothers for at least a year showed higher rates of depression and anxiety (25%) than a comparison group with no separation (15%).
Supports the critical period idea. In that same research the mental health effects were far more intense in those separated before the age of six, which fits Bowlby’s claim that early separation has long-lasting consequences.
Real-world impact. The work changed how children were treated during hospital stays, especially in encouraging regular family visits.
Limitations
Confirmation bias. Bowlby conducted the interviews himself, knowing his own hypothesis, so he may have looked harder for affectionless psychopathy in the thieves than in the controls.
Deprivation confused with privation. These children had disrupted early lives and some may never have formed an attachment in the first place, which means the blame Bowlby placed on broken bonds may be misplaced.
Retrospective data. Separation histories came from family interviews years later, so memory error and social desirability are real problems.
Correlational. Separation and criminality occur together here. Poverty, family conflict and instability travel with both.
Link to concepts
Change — this research changed how societies think about caring for children, particularly during hospital stays. That is a genuine real-world application, and it is the strongest thing you can say in the study’s defence.
Perspective — Bowlby’s account treats attachment as part of how identity forms, built on the idea that humans have a strong evolutionary urge to bond with someone who will protect and nurture them.
Exam practice
WORKED EXAMPLE
Describe one study on the effects of lack of attachment. [3 marks]
1. Aim and sample
Bowlby (1944) studied 88 emotionally maladjusted children at a London clinic: 44 accused of theft, 44 controls.
2. MethodInterviews with the children and their families, looking for affectionless psychopathy and prolonged early separation.
3. Finding
86% of the 14 affectionless psychopaths had experienced prolonged early separation, against 5% of controls.
Aim + method + findingOne precise statistic beats three vague sentences.
WORKED EXAMPLE
Evaluate research on maternal deprivation. [ERQ paragraph]
Strength
The 44 thieves study had huge practical impact, changing hospital policy on family visits.
LimitationHowever Bowlby ran the interviews himself, opening the door to confirmation bias.
Deeper limitation
He may also have confused deprivation with privation, since these children may never have formed a bond to lose.
Judgement
The study identified a real association and did real good, but its causal claim is far weaker than its reputation suggests.
Impact does not equal validityThat final line is the kind of sentence that lifts an ERQ into the top band.
💡 Exam tip
Define deprivation and privation early. Every later criticism depends on the difference.
Say “affectionless psychopath” is Bowlby’s own term, not a clinical diagnosis in use today.
Learn three figures only: 86%, 17%, 5%. That is enough for full description marks.
“Risk factor” is the safe phrase for criminality. Never write that deprivation causes crime.
The hospital-visiting change is your best “real-world application” point across the whole unit.
An opportunity sample of clinic-referred children is not representative — use that as a generalisability criticism.
⚠️ Common mix-up
“All 44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths.” Only 14 were.
“Deprivation causes crime.” The design cannot support that. It is an association in one clinical sample.
Deprivation and privation reversed. Deprivation = had it and lost it. Privation = never had it.
This is not an experiment. There is no manipulated variable, so calling it one loses method marks.
The control group was not “normal children”. They were also emotionally maladjusted — they simply had not stolen.
Do not confuse this with Ainsworth. Different aim, different method, different decade.
Up next: Enculturation and a Sense of Self — attachment gives a child their first relationship, and culture gives them the rules they will carry without ever noticing they learned them.
Want this explained one-to-one?
Book a free session with an experienced IB Psychology tutor and get your trickiest topics made simple.
