Bonding, Parent-Child

Bonding refers to the process whereby parents develop emotional ties to—fall in love with—their children. Even in the professional literature, the term is frequently confused with the term attachment, which refers to the reciprocal process by which infants develop emotional relationships with their parents.

It is helpful to use different terms for these reciprocal processes because very different factors shape the formation of the two sorts of relationships. Adults are not constrained by the same cognitive and neuromaturational factors that constrain the pace of attachment formation. As a result, bonding tends to occur comparatively quickly, although the qualities of bonds surely change over time in response to changes in the parties, their interaction, and their circumstances.

Around 1970, pediatricians named M. H. Klaus and J. H. Kennell (e.g., 1981) began to popularize the concept of bonding in a series of widely publicized journal articles and an integrative book. Drawing heavily on experimental research involving the development of mother-offspring relationships in a number of nonhuman species, Klaus and Kennell criticized the birthing practices that had become normative in many industrialized countries, including the United States. In these countries, mothers were typically heavily sedated and gave birth in surgical suites, where the preferences of obstetricians seemed to outweigh those of mothers-to-be. Fathers and other potential sources of support were kept at bay. As soon as the babies exited the vaginal canal, they were whisked away by other medical professionals. New mothers were later given infrequent opportunities to see and hold their babies after they had been bathed, weighed, checked, and dressed. Both mothers and infants were likely under the influence of obstetrical medication in these early encounters, and the opportunities for interaction were limited by hospital regimes and routines.

Klaus and Kennell, along with some nursing professionals and parent advocacy groups, strongly criticized these practices on the grounds that they were medically unnecessary and seriously impeded the opportunities for mothers (and fathers) to bond to their newborn infants. History has proved them right. Motivated in large part by the criticism and advocacy, birthing practices were “humanized” by the adoption of practices that put prospective parents rather than medical professionals in charge, while moving childbirth from antiseptic delivery rooms into birthing rooms, where the mothers-to-be could be accompanied and assisted by support persons such as their partners. After the babies were born, they were often placed on the mothers' stomach or in the fathers' arms, and medically necessary intrusions were minimized and timed so as to be as unobtrusive as possible. Countless parents have benefited from these changes, which are believed to facilitate the formation of parent-infant relationships.

Perhaps in an effort to persuade a deeply suspicious and resentful medical establishment, however, Klaus and Kennell also overstated the importance of the earliest interactions between new parents (especially mothers) and their newborns (Eyer, 1992; Lamb & Hwang, 1982). In several reports, they argued that early skin-to-skin contact between mothers and newborns was necessary for bonding to take place, and that the relationships might be irretrievably disrupted when such contact was denied. These claims placed unnecessary stress especially on those new parents who were not able to have early contact with their infants, perhaps because they had to deliver via cesarean section or because the infants were adopted or born prematurely or unhealthy. In fact, subsequent research has shown that such parents are able to bond successfully and that the relationships with their children are in no way deficient. Neither early nor extended contact per se have long-term effects on the formation of parent-offspring bonds (Lamb, 1982).

...