Emotional life and development of affective ties

Perhaps it happened to everyone, in life, to be angry or frustrated because of events or facts relating directly or indirectly to other humans. Maybe too, similar episodes that have to do with natural phenomena and perfectly random, and certainly those involving other members of our species, are marked with detail: often we want to relive another or to others what they (or natural causes) did prove to us.
Besides this, it is of considerable interest that, in the absence of opportunity to act on the individual responsible for our feelings we tend to "vent" our anger against individuals for whom we can afford, and that is our loved ones, people who love us and so on.
This kind of behavior is part perfectly in the line of action indicated above: it would almost seem that our principal interest is to bring back someone negative emotions we felt , preferably the author of our state of mind but failing that,  to anyone at hand,as  relative or friend .
Emotion is a comparison effective. Informs us that he is not pretending that evidence. If we believe that the person that we face is trying emotion, in this case negative, which we judge according to the intensity of its effects, then we are even-partially-satisfied as if we could transfer to another negative emotion and stress that we consumed.
There is a transfer that move this amount of emotional stress from body to body and has a strong liberating effect. But because it is so liberating I say, not the pair to whom causes our discomfort, which is understandable, but to whom has nothing to do? Why in demanding our credits of happiness or in paying our debts' s unhappiness seems to be little influence the object of our emotional transactions?
Why, I say again, if for example our boss gives us a dressing down  earning our resentment, we are sufficiently rewarded -not totally- by turning them into some other subject?
But this step of emotions can occur if and only if the caller gives shows to get a return emotionally stressful from interaction. Although the direct object of vengeance or the indirect one, do not show to consider or to suffer any consequences from our actions, then the effect of the transfer does not occur and our remains  angryer than before.
A result similar to that suggested above communicates Bowlby [1], citing some works (slightly cruel) made to small children [2].
If you separate the children from their mother for several days, leaving them in a residential nursery in the company of teachers, and comparing the results with a control group that stays at home instead, these effects are noticed only in children deprived the company of his mother and not in others.
These effects are defined as emotional and behavioral problems and are:
emotional detachment in the meeting with the mother
inexhaustible need for attachment to the mother.

On the return trip, children are  a little mixed feelings: on one hand they need maternal contact as something vital, something that occurs with shouts and calls continued during the early days of separation, on the other when reunited after a separation a few days, also show a kind of emotional coldness, a sort of resentment nameless (in fact the experiment was in children about two years) which requires a rather long time to be digested.
When the situation returns to normal, the baby develops a maternal attachment even stronger than before, fearing any more intense brief separation.
Interestingly, the dynamics of the return home of children. Manifests an emotional detachment that is a clear shift the responsibility for separation to the mother, and that highlights the emotional detachment, a sort of emotional punishment that is able to recreate in to the object (the mother) the sensations experienced by the subject ( the child).
We hypothesize that, in children, increased stress due to separation may also be mediated by the inability to act of its proximity. As we known resentment is to the causes of our negative moods, so if the boss lets us do overtime not provided or if the policeman raises us a fine for a temporary stop, we know very well what is the object of our anger . Even if, for example, you can not complete an entrance exam or will not answer a question, if the stressor is made to coincide with yourself you will have a display of anger toward you, making ourselves the 'object of our grievances.
So, for the child, the mother is the agent of separation, since he had not sufficient knowledge of other causes. Not him was dismissed from his mother but the mother has moved away from him. Since the baby is unable to make these considerations, we can  imagine how he interprets at emotional-motor level-i.e. emotorio- this separation as an impediment to contact caused by his mother, her hide, and how the care of teachers and  his crying are insufficient to placate. The child must want the source of its wealth because it is from that source that allowed his acts.