Ecological Systems Theory: Bronfenbrenner’s Theory of Human Development Applied by Nina Bingham

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to explain Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. I will describe in detail the Ecological Systems, Bronfenbrenner’s associated naturalistic observation, his “person-process-context model,” and parental monitoring. I will apply this theory by describing and evaluating how the systems have influenced my development, and analyze how they have influenced my decision to obtain a master’s degree.

     In 1977 Developmental Psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner published, "Toward an experimental ecology of human development", which introduced his Ecological Systems Theory, today regarded as a landmark theory in psychological human development studies. Bronfenbrenner’s theory was a large step away from the phenomenological developmental theories of Erik Erickson and Jean Paiget; Bronfenbrenner dared propose a “broader approach to human development” (Bronfenbrenner, p. 513) wherein not only individual development is considered, but how the individual and the environment interact and influence on another. In 1979 Bronfenbrenner’s "The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design" was published, where his “ecological theory” of development was presented, readily identified by a diagram of concentric circles of labeled systems, with a toddler pictured in the center. Rather than illustrate development in a linear, sequential form (as did Erickson and Piaget), Bronfenbrenner showed the interdependent systems which surround the child as occurring simultaneously, while having varying levels of influence on the child.

    Bronfenbrenner theorized that the microsystem is in frequent contact with the child (family, classroom), while the Macrosystem has the least amount of direct influence (society). This conceptualization of multiple influences upon a child’s development was more complex than previous theories which theorized according to age. “…ecological systems theory is presented as a theory of human development in which everything is seen as interrelated…” (Darling, 2007). Bronfenbrenner called this phenomenon “reciprocal interaction,” the way the individual influences the environment, and reciprocally, the environment influences the individual. Bronfenbrenner’s contextually interrelated theory is interesting because it departs from the one-dimensional view of lifespan development. A student of Bronfenbrenner’s, after reviewing six decades of his work, concluded that it is his emphasis of the interplay between phenomenology and, “...the impossibility of understanding individual developmental processes in isolation” (Darling, 2007) which holds promise for future advancements in developmental psychology. Because Bronfenbrenner analyzed the contributors to development in such a way as to include all systems, rather than explain development one system at a time, his is a “multi-system” system, which doesn’t exclude social influences, but includes them. Bronfenbrenner outlined the systems thus: Microsystems, Mesosystems, Exosystems and Macrosystems. Bronfenbrenner didn’t stop at revising developmental psychology’s approach; he also critiqued the artificial laboratory environment which he called, “…the science of the strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible periods of time” (p. 513). Bronfenbrenner attempted to normalize development research by devising experiments which were naturalistic observation of children, and without biasing, preconceived hypothesis.

    Another facet of Ecological Systems Theory is what B. and Cronter (1983) described as a “person-process-context model,” where development was studied as a product of context (environment) and person (gender). In later work, B. and Ceci (1993, 1994) presented bioecological systems theory: explaining what part genetics played in the Ecological Systems model. In 1998, B. and Morris developed the “developmentally instigative characteristics,” a concept which accounted for how personal characteristics can evoke or instigate environmental reactions. However, Bronfenbrenner’s passion was the study of parenting. “Parental monitoring refers to the parent’s efforts to gain knowledge of children’s and adolescents’ behavior” (Darling, 2007). Monitoring was Bronfenbrenner’s discovery; one of the most consistent predictors of both positive child development, and the avoidance of problem behavior. The conclusion of these monitoring studies showed that low SES environments were correlated with negative behavior; as was low parental responsiveness. In the late 1990’s researchers influenced by Bronfenbrenner began to apply his model to understand parenting (Darling, 2007).

    In 2000, Stattin and Kerr's critiques of the parental monitoring claims amended Bronfenbrenner’s theory by adding that, “…adolescents control of information, and not parental efforts, drove differences in knowledge.” Bronfenbrenner summed up his vision for the future of developmental psychology in, "Towards a critical social history of developmental psychology: A propaedentic discussion". He said, “I am suggesting a biological-functional criterion for direction in development. I am suggesting further that when this criterion is not met, living systems can fall apart. I have in mind two kinds of systems-the biopsychological system that a human being is, and the socio-economic-political system that an environment is…so I see our field of (developmental psychology) as having reached an important turning point. The issue is whether we will have the resolve and the wisdom to confront the newly discovered complexities of the phenomenon we are committed to study” (1986).

     In reply, developmental researcher and colleague Kessen (1983a) replied, “(John) Dewey would be outraged, as Urie (Bronfenbrenner) is outraged, about the present condition of children in the United States, as I am.” Though developmental psychology is a specialty of psychology which is updating its theories as other disciplines evolve, in some ways I feel as if it is a branch of psychology in its infancy. It has progressed rather slowly as compared to other technologically-oriented sciences such as neuroscience and sociology, which means there is much promise for the future, and “room” for breakthroughs in our understanding of the developing human in relation to his environment. Now I’d like to turn the discussion homeward.

    I can apply Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System to my personal development. Using Bronfenbrenner’s Chronogram (a pictorial of his systems), I will work my way inside-out, beginning with describing my Microsystem first. I am the product of a single-parent home, where my mother was an entrepreneur, and my father was an unemployed alcoholic. By observational learning my mother taught me how to care for the household duties and be bold in business. From my father I was conditioned to be afraid and distrustful of men, and to protect my siblings from abuse. My mother insisted we attend church several times a week at least, and from the Christian teachings I learned to have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” I remained a Christian until the age of 33, when I decided to be an enthusiastic agnostic. School was always a happy respite from home for me as a child. We were a low-income family, so my maternal grandparents took a big part in raising us while my mother was at work after my parents divorced at the age of 11. From my Microsystem I learned a strong work ethic, Christian values and family values such as: honesty and respect, thanks to the influence of my grandparents. After the age of 11, my father abandoned my siblings and I, moved to another state and remarried, and had more children. It wasn’t until I was 28, and had his first grandchild that I contacted him with the news.

    My Exosystem was confined to the mass media, and cousins who visited every summer. Other than that, our family, due to the trauma we had endured with our father, was a “closed system.” We didn’t try to get to know our neighbors, involve ourselves in community affairs, and had no involvement with social service agencies or friends of the family. Our grandparents took up the “slack” financially so we lived modestly, and the church was our social point of contact. Because my mother owned a local beauty salon, many women in our small resort town knew her, and us, as a result.

    My Macrosystem included the culture of Northern California which was blessed with tepid weather and sunshine. I grew up swimming in the river during summers with my cousins, bike riding and playing in the great outdoors. The culture in my neighborhood was strange; a blend of home owners that only visited their small resort homes during the summer, families with children like ours, and Russian homeowners who were old women, whose husbands had passed. Our “hill” was a modest resort neighborhood, so the scenery was naturalistically poetic; the Sonoma Valley boasted rolling hills of grape vineyards and the Russian River where we spent most of our summers frolicking in the then-clean water. In retrospect, it was an amazingly clean and wholesome place to grow up. There was no crime to speak of; I don’t remember ever seeing a patrol car during my entire childhood. Though my natural environment was enviable, my childhood was fraught with physical and emotional abuse by my Bipolar father. Without the mitigating influences of my grandparents and the ideal small town I grew up in, I wouldn’t have fared well psychologically. Even so, I required psychotherapy as an adult to resolve the abuse issues. My psychotherapeutic experience is what kindled my interest in counseling.

    My decision to earn a master’s degree in mental health counseling is both the result of my childhood Microsystem experience with my mentally ill father, and my adult Exosystem experience of obtaining mental health counseling. These two systems have influenced my life more than the other systems. An abusive father (Microsystem), and mental health support in the form of therapy (Exosystem) has caused me to devote the remainder of my life to assisting the mentally ill. In conclusion, applying Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems has enabled me to understand how important considering all influences are on personality development and behavior. To ignore important environmental influences is not only short-sighted. Bronfenbrenner’s theory is holistic; it accounts for the individual’s temperament and personality, and his environment, from a multi-systems perspective. His is a complex theory, which why I appreciate it. He was a theorist who didn’t assume to know; he saw development as an ever-changing, ever-evolving puzzle, just as the human mind is, and found the answers to development in a multitude of places.

References:

(1977) Brofenbrenner, Urie. Toward an experimental ecology of human development, American Psychologist, Vol 32 (7), Jul, 1977. pp. 513-531, American Psychological Association.

 (1979) Bronfenbrenner, Urie. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design, American Psychologist, Vol 32(7), Jul, 1977. pp. 513-531, American Psychological Association.

(2007) Darling, Nancy. Ecological Systems Theory: the Person in the Center of the Circles. Research in Human Development, 4 (3-4), 203-217, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

(1986) Bronfenbrenner, Urie. Towards a critical social history of developmental psychology: A propaedeutic discussion. American Psychologist, Vol 41 (11), Nov 1986. pp. 1218-1230, American Psychological Association. (1983a)

Kessel, F.S. & Siegel, A.W., (Eds.), The child and other cultural interventions (pp. 26-39). New York: Praeger.