Harmonizing to Feldman ( 2008 ) . the emotional bond that develops between a kid and a certain person is referred to as fond regard. In nonhumans. this procedure begins in the first yearss of life with “imprinting. ” which is basically the infant’s preparedness to larn ( Lorenz. 1957. as cited in Feldman. 2008. p. 89 ) . The bond is facilitated by mother-child physical contact during forming. A similar phenomenon is observed between human female parents and their neonates. which is why mother’s are strongly encouraged to keep and nurse ( or bottle-feed ) their kids every bit shortly as possible after birth. The eating is of import. but besides of import for social-emotional wellness is the satisfying of the demand for that sense of connexion and safety gained from keeping the baby with soft soundness against the bosom.
Maslow’s hierarchy of demands asserts that biological demands ( i. e. nutrient. H2O. etc. ) are primary demands. while safety is secondary ( Maslow. 2005 ) . Harmonizing to Bowlby ( 1951. as cited in Feldman. 2008. p. 191 ) . fond regard is based on a demand for safety and security. So. impetuously. it would look that the proviso of physiological demands has little to make with the developing emotional bonds ( fond regard ) . However. one cold argue that biological demands autumn under the term “safety and security. ” If so. Bowlby’s averment holds more truth: “As they develop. babies come to larn that their safety is best provided by a peculiar person. ” This is reiterated in Pittman. et Al ( 2011 ) . which indicates that the baby develops a sense of “having a secure base for geographic expedition. nurturance. and succorance. and of holding assurance in the adequateness and predictability of nurturance and support. ” The baby comes to larn that the health professional can be trusted to supply what he or she needs. This is similar to Erikson’s foremost psychosocial phase of crisis – Trust versus Mistrust.
Erikson argued that during the first 18-months of life ( about the same age as the kids used in the Ainsworth Strange Situation survey of 1978 ) . babies subconsciously evaluate “how good their demands are met by health professionals ( Feldman. 2008. p. 200 ) . ” If the health professional ( s ) have fulfilled their parenting function. and earned the trust of their kid as suppliers. so the kid has resolved the “trust-mistrust” struggle. and is better prepared for the demands of the following phase – “autonomy versus shame and uncertainty ( Feldman. 2008. p. 17 ) . ” Erikson’s construct of the autonomy-shame and uncertainty struggle “parallels impressions of assurance in geographic expedition from the Bowlby-Ainsworth theory ( Pittman. et Al. 2011 ) . [ Note: Bowlby-Ainsworth Theory is mentioning to Bowlby’s preparation of attachment theory and Ainsworth’s derivation of attachment types. ] As stated by Pittman. et Al ( 2011 ) both Erikson and Bowlby-Ainsworth assert that one time a kid has established this trust or sense of safety and security with the health professional. they can hold assurance in “the universe as a topographic point that they can safely research. and in their ain abilities to research it. ”
It appears that the plants of Ainsworth. Bowlby. Erikson. and Lorenz agree that the really first bond established between neonates and health professional sets the foundation for how that child perceives the universe and ego. and later. the quality of future relationships.
Feldman. R. S. ( 2008 ) . Social and Personality Development in Infancy. Development Across the Life Span. Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Maslow. Abraham H. ( 2005 ) . In K. Krapp ( Ed. ) . Psychologists and Their Theories for Students ( Vol. 2. pp. 303-324 ) . Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //go. galegroup. com. ezproxy. autonomy. edu:2048/ps/i. make? id=GALE % 7CCX3456300032 & A ; v=2. 1 & A ; u=vic_liberty & A ; it=r & A ; p=GVRL & A ; sw=w
Pittman. J. F. . Keiley. M. K. . Kerpelman. J. L. . & A ; Vaughn. B. E. ( 2011 ) . Attachment. Identity. and Intimacy: Analogues Between Bowlby’s and Erikson’s Paradigms. Journal of Family Theory and Review. 3. 32-46