Object constancy: how the child learns that love does not disappear with absence

Article written in collaboration with @maricagobbatelli_psicologa

For an adult, knowing that a loved one exists even when they are not in the same room is obvious. For a young child, this certainty is by no means a given: it must be built, day after day, through thousands of micro-experiences of presence, absence, and return. This psychic process has a precise name in developmental psychology: object constancy.

Two concepts that often get confused

Before going into the merits, it is useful to distinguish two notions that are often superimposed in common language: object permanence and object constancy.

Object permanence is a cognitive concept, introduced by Jean Piaget (1937) in his studies on sensorimotor development. It indicates the child's ability to mentally represent an object even when it leaves the visual field — an ability that generally consolidates between 18 and 24 months. It's why a two-year-old, unlike a six-month-old, looks for the toy that fell under the couch: he knows it continues to exist even if he doesn't see it.

Object constancy is instead an affective-relational concept, theorized in particular by Margaret Mahler within the framework of her separation-individuation theory (Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975). It is not about the ability to know that a physical object exists, but about maintaining a stable and reassuring mental image of the attachment figure, regardless of whether it is a source of satisfaction or frustration at that moment. It's a much later and much more fragile milestone, which Mahler says only consolidates around age three, and which actually continues to strengthen well beyond childhood.

In other words: knowing that the mother exists even when I don't see her is the permanence of the object. Feeling that I can continue to love her, trust her, and feel safe even when she's far away, or even when she just told me no, is object consistency.

Winnicott and the function of the reliable environment

Donald Winnicott approached this theme from a different but complementary perspective, focused not so much on the child's cognitive structure as on the quality of the environment around him. For Winnicott, the trust that the other will continue to exist and "return" is built through the repeated experience of a holding function, that is, of sufficiently good and predictable environmental support, which allows the child to go through separations without being overwhelmed by them (Winnicott, 1971).

In this framework, the concept of transitional object — the stuffed animal, the cover, the flap of fabric that the child always carries with him takes on a central role. Winnicott (1971) describes these objects as a psychic "bridge" between total dependence on the parent and the ability to be alone: they do not replace the attachment figure, but help the child to carry within himself a stable representation of it in moments of absence.

It is important to emphasize that, for Winnicott, what makes this process possible is not the perfection of the parent, but its sufficient reliability: a "good enough" adult, capable of returning regularly after separations, rather than an adult constantly present and free from failure.

The contribution of attachment

John Bowlby's attachment theory offers a complementary key to understanding. Bowlby (1969) showed how children develop, on the basis of repeated experiences with caregiving figures, real internal operational models: mental representations of themselves, others and relationships, which orient the child's expectations with respect to the adult's availability and responsiveness.

Mary Ainsworth's studies using the Strange Situation procedure have empirically shown how children exposed to sensitive and predictable care develop a secure attachment, characterized precisely by the ability to tolerate separation from their parent by trusting in their return, while inconsistent or unpredictable care patterns are more frequently associated with forms of insecure or ambivalent attachment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). These internal operating patterns, once established, tend to remain relatively stable and also influence adult relationships.

When object constancy does not fully structure itself

When early experiences of presence and return have been discontinuous, unpredictable, or excessively fraught with anguish, the process of constructing object constancy may be compromised. Fonagy and Target (2003), working within the framework of mentalization theory, highlighted how a poorly tuned care environment can also hinder the development of the ability to regulate affections and to represent one's own and others' mental states — abilities closely intertwined with the possibility of maintaining a stable internal image of the other even in moments of distance or conflict.

In adult life, a less than fully consolidated object constancy can manifest itself differently from person to person, but certain patterns often occur: difficulty tolerating physical or emotional distance in meaningful relationships; need for frequent confirmation of the existence of the bond; experiences of abandonment disproportionate to objectively minor signals; difficulty "keeping in" the loved one during a conflict, as if the bond were zero with each friction, then return intact once the disagreement is resolved.

It should be noted that these patterns do not constitute a diagnosis in themselves, but relational tendencies that deserve clinical attention when they significantly compromise the person's functioning.

Implications for daily practice

From a clinical and educational point of view, these theoretical contributions suggest some operational indications for parents, educators and professionals working with young children:

• Name absence before it happens. Verbally anticipating a separation ("I'm going out now, I'm coming back after bed") helps the child build a sense of time and anticipation, rather than being caught off guard.

• Build stable rituals of greeting and reunion. The repetitiveness of a gesture, a phrase, a small rite, functions as a symbolic anchor that makes predictable what would otherwise have been experienced as sudden discontinuity.

• Validate the emotion without amplifying or minimizing it. Recognizing the child's struggle in the face of separation, without either dramatizing or dismissing it, supports the ability to process it.

• Focus on the predictability of return, rather than the absence of estrangement. Absence itself is not the critical factor, but its unpredictability: a parent who wanders away but returns regularly builds trust more than a parent who is always present but unpredictable in their responses.

• Support the use of transitional objects, when the child spontaneously requests them, as a symbolic bridge in moments of waiting (Winnicott, 1971).

An achievement that is not only about childhood

Although object constancy has its roots in the very early years of life, it is a capacity that continues to be challenged and strengthened throughout development, including adult relationships. Every meaningful bond —couple, friendship, therapeutic— requires to some extent, the ability to keep alive, within oneself, a stable image of the other even in moments of physical distance or emotional conflict. In this sense, understanding the early origins of this process not only serves to understand childhood, but also offers a key to understanding many relational dynamics of adulthood.

Bibliographic references

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (2003). Psychopathology and the development of self: Developmental research from attachment theory to research in psychoanalysis. Whurr Publishers.

Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant: Symbiosis and individuation. Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1937). La construction du réel chez l'enfant. Delachaux et Niestlé.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. Tavistock Publications.