Ecological Systems Theory: Exploring the Development of the Theoretical
Framework as Conceived by Bronfenbrenner
Marcus Crawford
Social Work Education Department, FresnoState, 5310 N. Campus Drive, Fresno, CA 93740, United States.
Journal of Public Health Issues and Practices
Crawford, M., (2020). J Pub Health Issue Pract 4(2):170
https://doi.org/10.33790/jphip1100170
Article Details
Article Type: Research Article
Received date: 18
th
September, 2020
Accepted date: 15
th
October, 2020
Published date: 22
nd
October, 2020
*
Corresponding Author: Dr. Marcus Crawford, Social Work Education Department, FresnoState, 5310 N. Campus Drive,
Fresno, CA 93740, United States.
E-mail: [email protected]
Citation: Crawford, M. (2020). Ecological Systems theory: Exploring the development of the theoretical framework as con-
ceived by Bronfenbrenner. J Pub Health Issue Pract 4(2):170. doi: https://doi.org/10.33790/jphip1100170.
Copyright: ©2020
,
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author
and source are
credited.
Abstract
The Ecological Systems theory represents a convergence of
biological, psychological, and social sciences. Through the study
of the ecology of human development, social scientists seek to
explain and understand the ways in which an individual interacts
with the interrelated systems within that individual’s environment
(Bronfenbrenner, 1983a). Bronfenbrenner (1994) sought to develop
a theory of human development that would consider the inuences of
all of the systems that play a role in impacting the lived experiences
of the individual no matter how remote the inuence. Today, many
of these concepts are commonplace in social work practice (micro-,
meso-, and macrosystems, for instance); however, its foundation of
empirical support is often less understood. This article will explore
the historical development of the Ecological Systems theory through
the works of Bronfenbrenner, will examine the empirical evidence
supporting the theory, and will discuss the implications of the theory
within social work practice.
Keywords: Ecological Systems; Bronfenbrenner; Human
Development; Micro, Meso, Exo, Macro, Chrono
Introduction
Ecological Systems theory describes human development through
the prism of the "environmental interconnections and their impact
on the force directly affecting psychological growth" [1]. Through
the study of the ecology of human development, social scientists
seek to explain and understand the ways in which an individual
interacts with the interrelated systems within that individual’s
environment [2]. The theory represents a convergence of biological,
psychological, and social sciences. According to Bronfenbrenner
[1], “human development is the product of interaction between the
growing human organism and its environment" (p. 16) with the
developing person seen as malleable within the social milieu of his or
her environment. The change needs to be experiential and lasting in
order for development to occur [1].
The Ecological Systems theory provides a theoretical framework
whereby the processes that shape human development may be
examined and discovered [3, 4]. Bronfenbrenner [5] expanded on the
theoretical writings of other human developmental theorists before
him, namely Lewin, Thomas and Thomas, Mead, and Freud. This
article will explore the historical development of the Ecological
Systems theory through the works of Bronfenbrenner, will examine
the empirical evidence supporting the theory, and will discuss the
implications of the theory within social work practice.
Development of Ecological Systems
Bronfenbrenner [2] sought to craft a view of human development that
could explain growth without examining decits within the person,
which had been common practice in many developmental models
previously developed. Before the introduction of Ecological Systems
theory, a General Systems theory was introduced by Bertalanffy. In
describing General Systems theory, Bertalanffy [6] wrote the theory
had moved from a primarily engineering and computer technology
theory to a social sciences theory as a way to describe how humans
interact with each other. Prior to the development of General
Systems theory, most scientic study sought to reduce systems to
the smallest units of measure and investigate them independently
of each other; however, General Systems theory posited that whole
systems could (and should) be examined intact with their interaction
with each other being the important function for science to explore
[6]. While the development of General Systems theory pertained
mainly to scientic and mathematical concepts at the time, the model
may be applied within social science as its central role is to “explain
phenomena or order in terms of interactions of processes” [7].
Many social science studies from the 1950s through 1970s focused
only on a child or only on the parents; the studies did not consider
the reciprocal inuences that the child and parent would have on
each other. Bronfenbrenner [1] proposed that systems of inuence
within an individual’s immediate life each impacted the individual
in different ways; however, he proposed the individual also had
an impact on these systems [8]. This whole-person approach in
examining the individual within the environmental systems of
inuence is rooted in the concepts of General Systems theory [6].
The systems within a person’s environment occur at different levels,
described by Germain [9] as “Chinese boxes t inside one another”
(p. 537). Bronfenbrenner [1] would propose the following systems:
micro, meso, exo, and macro, later adding the chrono [10]. The
micro, meso, and macro systems had been previously labelled by
Brim [11].
Microsystem
The person’s immediate environment comprises a system of
inuence called the microsystem. Bronfenbrenner [1] dened the
microsystem as “"a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal
relations experienced over time by the developing person in a given
setting with particular physical and material characteristics" (p. 22).
Later, Bronfenbrenner would expand upon this denition: interaction
in this level may be social or symbolic and should be sustained in
J Pub Health Issue Pract JPHIP, an open access journal
Volume 4. 2020. 170 ISSN- 2581-7264
societal structure [11]. The macrosystem creates a pattern of
interaction between and among the different micro-, meso-, and
exosystems [1]. "The macrosystem may be thought of as societal
blueprint for a particular culture or subculture" [3]. Bronfenbrenner
described the ways that the culture of a family develops within the
structure of the family in the microsystem. This then is inuenced
by the mesosystems and exosystems of the individuals within that
family. Furthermore, all of these systems are then impacted by the
overall society and culture [1]. Special emphasis is given to cultures
within the groups, opportunity structures that are created by systems
and experienced by individuals, and patterns of exchange within and
among groups [12]. In later works, Bronfenbrenner added that the
pattern of social exchange is an additional important component of
the macrosystem.
Consider an immigrant family with a culture that is distinct from
the majority culture. They may speak a language other than the
majority at home. The adults may not speak the majority language
at all while the children, because of school and socialization within
their micro- and mesosystems, may speak both their native language
and the majority language. While these inuences are occurring at
multiple levels of the individual systems, the macrosystem impact
oftentimes may drive these forces which may vary depending upon
the situation, the time, and the place in which they occur. This may
then include the nal level of the ecological perspective.
Chronosystem
When Bronfenbrenner rst developed the Ecological Systems
theory, he did not account for time as a construct in human
development. Later, he added this concept, noting that many human
developmental theorists had only looked at time as it pertained to
the process of aging [10]. That is, as people age and grows older,
they mature and develop as their biological conditions changes.
The addition of the chronosystem incorporates the concept of time
into the ecological system of human development [3]. This includes
not only the aging and maturation of the person but also the time in
which that person lives and develops. An example of this provided
by Bronfenbrenner is a study of children and adolescents who grew
up during the start of the Great Depression being affected differently
than children born just after it [3]. An example from more modern
times might be children born pre and post 9/11 in the United States
having vastly different concepts of terrorism and safety. The effects
of the chronosystem do not have to be from a major event though.
Consideration is given to the time and place in which the person
lives. A young adult living in 21st century America would have a
much different idea of privacy and its impacts than a young person
living in a Brazilian rain forest in the mid-19th century for instance.
Important aspects of the theory to consider.
Ecological transitions are important to the development of human
ecology [3]. Bronfenbrenner dened an ecological transition as the
movement within a microsystem that changes or alters the makeup of
that microsystem [1]. A promotion at work, changing grades at school,
the birth of a new sibling, or a death of a family member could all be
examples of the alteration of a microsystem that change the makeup
of that system. Bronfenbrenner [1] identied that magnitude of these
types of transitions in inuencing the development of the individual
stating that “setting transitions continue to have developmental
impact throughout the lifespan” (p. 385).
Equinality is not a concept discussed in Bronfenbrenner’s writings;
however, the concept is central to the General Systems theory [13]
and is applicable to the Ecological Systems theory. Equinality can
be understood as the concept that the starting place of an organism
does not, necessarily, dene its end place [14]. Germain [9] described
equinality as understanding that a person may achieve different
goals through a myriad of means depending upon the environment in
which he or she is raised and upon the systems that inuence that indi-
vidual throughout life. While the concept of equinality incorporates
Page 2 of 6
J Pub Health Issue Pract JPHIP, an open access journal
Volume 4. 2020. 170 ISSN- 2581-7264
increasingly complex ways [12], and the microsystem includes an
individual’s personality, beliefs, and temperament (1989). People
with whom an individual has daily, face-to-face contact such as
families or other people living in the home are also a part of the
microsystem [11]. The microsystem may include people outside of
the home as well if they have regular, consistent contact with that
individual [4]. For children, this may be school or a daycare; for
adults, this may be a workplace, gym, or coffee shop.
According to Bronfenbrenner, the importance of this level of the
ecosystem cannot be understated. Bronfenbrenner and Evans [4]
wrote that the microsystem provides the outline for the processes that
will inuence the psychological development and behavioral changes
of the individual. Experiences are critical to understanding how the
inuences of the microsystem work. Direct experience through contact
within microsystems has a greater inuence than indirect contact
through or with other systems [1]. Importantly, Bronfenbrenner [1]
noted that the systems that comprise the microsystem may affect the
individual separately and in tandem with each other. This distinction
leads to the second level of the Ecological System.
Mesosystem
The mesosystem describes the second level of the ecology of human
development. Bronfenbrenner [1] dened the mesosystem simply as
“a system of microsystems" (p. 40). The mesosystem is made up of
linkage between the different microsystems in a person's life. In other
words, how school and home interact creates a mesosystem. As noted
above, Bronfenbrenner conceptualized different systems may work
with (or against) each other in an individual’s life. These interactions
between multiple microsystems create the mesosystem layers [1].
Additionally, an important concept in the mesosystem development
is that of synergy; that is, “the interaction of developmentally
instigative or inhibitory features and processes [that may be] present
in each setting” [12].
School provides an example for this. The classroom, students in
the class, and teacher create a microsystem for an individual student.
The school itself, the student body, and the staff at the school
comprise a mesosystem for an individual student. Microsystems and
mesosystems must necessarily include the individual [4]. Systems
that impact one of these environments, but do not include the
individual, create the third layer of the ecological environment.
Exosystem
The exosystem is much like the mesosystem in that it is made
up of microsystems that interact with each other; however, in the
exosystem, at least one of the microsystems cannot contain the
person at the center of this system [1, 4, 11]. A simple example is
the workplace of a parent. The child is not a part of the workplace
system; nevertheless, he or she could easily be inuenced by that
system if the parent is required to work long hours, possibly missing
school events or even simply coming home stressed from work.
Because the child is not a part of the workplace environment, this
cannot be a part of his or her micro or mesosystems. This inuence,
then, occurs at the exosystem level.
The idea of reciprocity is easily seen in the lower systems. One can
understand how a child may inuence his or her parent and how that
parent in turn inuences the child. Even within the mesosystem, a
child can easily inuence both the parent and the teacher, while they
are in turn inuencing each other. This notion is still true within the
exosystem as well. Even though the exosystems do not contain the
individual, the inuence is still reciprocal. Just as a parent may be
inuenced by the work system and come home stressed, a parent
may also be stressed within the home system and bring this to work.
A sick child may cause a parent to miss work, thereby impacting the
work system without the child being a part of it.
Macrosystem
The macrosystem is dened broadly as the overall culture and
Page 3 of 6
J Pub Health Issue Pract JPHIP, an open access journal
Volume 4. 2020. 170 ISSN- 2581-7264
the ideas that different systems inuence an individual, the inuence
alone cannot predict what that individual will do.
The concept of ecological validity is also important, especially when
considering research as social scientists. "Ecological validity refers
to the extent to which the environment experienced by the subjects in
a scientic investigation has the properties it is supposed or assumed
to have by the investigator" [1]. Bronfenbrenner proposed specic
methodologies in order to maintain scientic rigor in studies. These
will be examined in further detail later in this article.
Bronfenbrenner introduced the concept of ecological niches in his
later development and adaptation of the theory. When ecological
factors converge together to form predictors that may be more (or
less) favorable to human development, an ecological niche is created.
A study examining low birth weight in newborns found that several
factors often converged to create an ecological model of risk factors
for pregnancies that may result in low birth weight babies. These
factors considered together created an ecological niche since none of
the factors alone could predict this developmental outcome.
Finally, proximal processes “involve a transfer of energy between
the developing human being and the persons, objects, and symbols
in the immediate environment" [4]. Bronfenbrenner and Ceci [8]
proposed that this process is one through which “genetic potentials
are actualized” (p. 570). The strongest proximal forces occur at the
microsystem level and weaken as the systems move outward from
the individual [3]. These processes are used to explain the ways
that spheres of inuence have impact on the development of the
individual and will be explained further in the article.
Aspects of Human Development
Biological, Psychological, and Spiritual factors
Human ecological development is a set of intertwined processes
involving the biological and psychological makeup of the individual
[8]. The interrelated systems that comprise the ecology of human
life create an environment whereby the biological and psychological
are inuenced in the growth of the individual [5]. Prior to the
development of what would become the Ecological Systems theory,
Bronfenbrenner [5] wrote that interpersonal relationships drive the
creation of personality development, a processthat he would later
call microsystems. In that paper, Bronfenbrenner sought to develop
a system of psychological theory that integrated the writings of
previous theorists from the biological and psychological realms.
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci [8] would later propose that the Ecological
Systems framework incorporated the psychological model with the
biological model in understanding the nature-nurture argument.
Hereditability may play a role in the development of human ecology;
however, the role of social interaction and psychological factors
cannot be discounted. Addressing the “most serious and problematic
limitation of the established behavioral genetics paradigm” (p. 57),
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci [8] wrote that hereditability can only
measure what may be biologically determined but at the expense of
ignoring the outside environmental inuences, which alter, expand,
and inuence the developmental processes.
Other researchers have explored the topic of biological factors
within the Ecological Systems theory. In examining the needs of
kinship care for youth who enter foster care, Hong et al. [15] applied
each level of the theory to the needs of kinship parents. In doing this,
they discussed the needs of biological family units through extended
family care. Meade and Ickovics [16] conducted a systematic review
that analyzed sexual health risk behaviors among adolescent girls
who had babies or were currently pregnant. Results indicated that
pregnancy creates myriad future risks that require intervention
strategies from multiple systems in the youth’s lives [16].
Psychological impacts have been studied as well. Chun, Devall, and
Sandau-Beckler (2013) studied the effect of alcohol use and negative
peer relations on psychological distress among Mexican-American
adolescents using an Ecological Systems framework. Findings
indicated that psychological distress was a signicant predictor for
negative peer relationships and the use of alcohol. Psychological
distress was also measured through the prism of Ecological Systems
theory in a study on the perception of neighborhood safety [17].
Results demonstrated that decreased perceptions of safety in a
neighborhood related to an increase in psychological distress [17].
These studies framed the research through the Ecological Systems
model by stressing the importance of different spheres of inuence
on the individual.
Spiritual factors are not discussed in the literature from
Bronfenbrenner with regard to the Ecological Systems theory. One
could, however, make inferences regarding spirituality within the
model. For instance, a person who regularly attends a religious service
would include this within his or her microsystem. If parents send
their children to a church but do not attend themselves, the church
becomes a part of the microsystems of their children and a part of the
exosystem of the parents. Members of faith communities may choose
to include the aspects of their faith as a part of relationships within
their microsystems.
While Bronfenbrenner did not connect the theory to spirituality,
other researchers have. Kang and Romo [18] wrote of youth who
reported higher levels of spirituality in turn reported lower depressive
scores and had increased academic performance. Spirituality has
been linked with ecological systems in other ways as well: protective
factors from macrosystem level traumas such as natural disasters
[19], with meso- and exosystems level resilience in at-risk youth
[20], and with microsystem level treatments for substance abusing
youth [21]. Ecological Systems approaches have been applied as well
in examining the spiritual factors that affect the counselors of sexual
abuse victims [22].
Social, cultural, and economic factors
Ecological Systems theory directly describes the social forces that
affect human development through the nested systems developed
by Bronfenbrenner. Even before he offered the Ecological Systems
theory, Bronfenbrenner conducted research into the socialization
effects of different systems within a child’s life. For instance, studies
examined topics ranging from the effects of parenting style on a
young person’s development of leadership skills and responsibility
[23] to alienation in youth [24], to adolescent behavior differences
based on family structure [25], and to educational systems and the
impact of school integration moderated by social class [26]. Often,
these studies examined multiple factors such as the socioeconomic
status of the family, cultural differences within family units, and
parental education levels.
Bronfenbrenner [24] considered social factors to be the most
salient to the development of the human ecology, writing that the
biggest concern for healthy development of a child is “the failure
of the young person to be integrated into his society" (p. 485).
Family was considered the most inuential microsystem in the social
development of a child [26]. Nevertheless, Ecological Systems still
considers the outer systems and their impacts on development of the
socialization of a child. The interaction of these systems creates the
social structures of a child’s life [27]. Social systems were not the
only ones that are considered in an ecological perspective, however.
As discussed above, Bronfenbrenner [1] included economic
factors such as the socioeconomic status of the family. In discussing
how children are socialized by their families, Bronfenbrenner [28]
included an examination of the family’s economic status as a variable
that could inuence the functioning of the micro- and mesosystems
at both the exo- and macrosystems levels. In examining family
authority and structure, socioeconomic status was again included as
a contributing variable [25].
Additional studies by Bronfenbrenner also discuss culture in one
regard or another. An early study examined not just socioeconomic
status of the family but also where that placed the family in the social
Page 4 of 6
J Pub Health Issue Pract JPHIP, an open access journal
Volume 4. 2020. 170 ISSN- 2581-7264
structure of that community [28]. Bronfenbrenner [25] demonstrated
differences based on the perceived social status of families even if
they had similar socialization patterns. Family structure showed
similar results, with the social status affecting the impacts of authority
with the differences being based on culture and race. Unfortunately,
these studies were done at a time when cultural and racial differences
were seldom explored by researchers, a fact noted by Bronfenbrenner
[1]. Current researchers have explored the impacts of culture within
the various levels of the individual’s ecosystem [18, 20].
Social Work Practice and Relevance
Ecological Systems theory lends itself to social work practice
in direct and discernable ways. Social work values incorporate
the ideas of cultural competence, whole person approaches, and
policy action in practice and research. Studies that Bronfenbrenner
conducted build on and inform these values. Culture and race were
both factors in previous studies during the development of the
Ecological Systems theory [23, 25, 26, 29, 30]. Bronfenbrenner [31]
conducted experiments that used what social workers would call a
person-centered or person-in-environment approach, even he did not
use these terms himself. The importance of emphasizing the person-
rst approach was apparent when Bronfenbrenner [1] wrote that
understanding human development means recognizing “reality not
as it exists in the so-called objective world but as it appears in the
mind of the person" (p. 23). The person-in-environment model is also
found in other studies as well [24, 32]. Finally, Bronfenbrenner [2, 24,
29] was a strong advocate for policy changes that would strengthen
the family and the development of healthy children. Bronfenbrenner
[32] wrote that "the erosion of the social fabric isolates not only
the child but also his [or her] family" (p. 460) and that government
policies can and should be enacted the help strengthen the changing
family.
The spheres of inuence within the microsystems are comprised
of systems that provide access to individual and familial level
interventions. Bronfenbrenner [1] wrote of the importance of social
scientists incorporating these multiple systems into the research design
of their studies. Through his research in these areas, Bronfenbrenner
[3] was able to demonstrate that proximal processes with negative
impacts have a more signicant impact for individuals from lower
socioeconomic statuses; conversely, positive proximal processes had
a greater impact for those living in higher socioeconomic statuses [3].
Multiple studies have conrmed the effects of proximal processes
with children and families [1, 23, 25, 28, 19]. Specically,
Bronfenbrenner [30] wrote of the importance of parent-school
communication and the role this mesosystem relationship played in
the educational attainment of children. Parent-child interactions have
been shown to have a profound impact on youth as they emerge into
adulthood; however, this study also looked at community impacts
that may have contributed to or altered the direction of development
[33]. Furthermore, Bronfenbrenner [31] wrote of the important role
that neighborhoods and communities have as agents of change for the
development of children within the community. This interest rests on
the foundations of social work practice.
Community connection plays an important role in the Ecological
Systems theory. Bronfenbrenner [34] wrote of his experiences
in China, seeing children meet the elders in the community after
school. The community came together to raise the children while the
parents worked. Experiences in the former U.S.S.R. also inuenced
Bronfenbrenner [35] in developing the idea that communities played
an important role in child development. Writing of the experiences
he had in China and the U.S.S.R., Bronfenbrenner [1] said that “the
different environments were producing discernable differences, not
only across but also within societies, in talent, temperament, human
relations, and particularly in ways in which the culture, or subculture,
brought up its next generation" (p. xii). Contrasting these other
cultures to American society, Bronfenbrenner [24] wrote of modern
American society manifesting isolation and alienation in youth
because of working parents, zoning restrictions that separated
neighborhoods from workplaces and shopping, and structured play
that isolated children from youth of different ages and cultures. This
led to the rise of the importance of the peer group in the lives of
young people, but this only exacerbated the feelings of isolation and
alienation [24].
Each of these examples rests on the concept of adaptation, which
is an important component in understanding Ecological Systems
theory. Germain [9] wrote that "ecology is concerned with adaptation
and the relation between organisms and their environments" (p.
535). Adaptation may refer to how a foster child changes with a
new placement or how a community adapts to the loss of a large
manufacturer. Adaptation also refers to how individual navigate
different systems with different expectations [9]. Change does not
have to occur at the individual or microsystem level. Gitterman
[36] wrote that “people adapt by changing their environments,
themselves, or both” (p. 475). Social workers often are involved in
micro- and mesosystem experiences with individuals adapting to a
changing environment; however, social workers may also advocate
for macrosystem level changes to assist client populations or
communities adapt to unforeseen change.
Chaos within the different systems that comprise the ecology of
the individual is also an important consideration in social work
practice [4, 37]. Chaos is dened as changing between and among
multiple systems or the interaction of multiple systems in a way
that manifests as dysfunction [4]. Examples of this may be moving
multiple times for a child in foster care or a parent having a series
of live-in relationships that last only short periods of time. Wertsch
[37] wrote that chaos is concerning because it inhibits the individual
from taking what has been learned in one system and carrying it
forward into other systems. Chaos stymies developmental progress
and creates dysfunction by interfering with proximal processes that
are necessary for growth [4]. Because practitioners may often be
involved in environments where these chaotic features are found,
social workers should be cognizant of the role that chaos plays in
healthy ecological development of individuals.
Theoretical underpinnings
Ecological Systems theory is founded on the work of many theorists
before Bronfenbrenner. Central to the theory is the concept that
individuals make up living systems [1, 9, 38]. An individual must be
open because open systems change and adapt to their environments
and do not follow pre-set patterns of behavior [38, 39]. An open
system can be changed by the environment around it and can also
affect change in the environment [14]. An open system must also
not exist inside a vacuum because it needs the interactions with
other systems to sustain itself [9]. This concept underpins Ecological
Systems theory in that Bronfenbrenner [1] posited that systems thrive
off and grow from their interaction with each other. The concept of
interconnectedness creates the base for Ecological Systems theory.
Other theoretical underpinnings include the idea that systems
are hierarchal with systems building on each other [9], that
communities grow from the individuals that comprise the community
(microsystems to mesosystems to macrosystems) [34], and that the
concepts of Ecological Systems theory are applicable across cultures
[1, 5, 35]. Finally, the continuous evolution and growth of human
development from experiences in the natural environment underpins
the theory [40].
Methodological Issues and Empirical Supports
Social science research is often fraught with complications regarding
methodological rigor and validity of ndings. Because of the nature
of the types of research questions, study designs may not be able to
withstand the highest levels of scientic examination, namely that of
experimental design with randomized control trials. Bronfenbrenner
wrote at length regarding this concern. During his mid-career,
Page 5 of 6
J Pub Health Issue Pract JPHIP, an open access journal
Volume 4. 2020. 170 ISSN- 2581-7264
Bronfenbrenner [27, 31, 32] wrote that study designs should include
as many factors as possible in order to test hypotheses that included
multiple aspects of the individuals’ lives, referring to a constructivist
approach in study design. Noting that this was contrary to typical
study designs in scientic research at the time, Bronfenbrenner
[27] wrote that expanding the research base justied using these
types of study designs and that controls could be put into place
to account for the multiple variables being studied. Research
in his mid and late career continued to advocate for research
methodologies that included multiple factors of analyses in order
to study more effectively the ecology of human development [2, 4,
41]. Bronfenbrenner [1] emphasized the importance of this approach
when he wrote that "in ecological research, the properties of the
person and of the environment, the structure of the environmental
settings, and the processes taking place within and between them
must be viewed as interdependent and analyzed in systems terms" (p.
41). To accomplish this, one should utilize a theoretical foundation
(such as the Ecological Systems theory) as the base for the empirical
support for the theory [5].
At one time, many individuals were studied by removing them
from their environments and doing the study in a laboratory setting.
Bronfenbrenner [1] wrote that little consideration was given that
the change in environments may have caused the differences.
Many experiments sought rigor and therefore lacked authenticity
to the systems in the person's life. Studies need to include multiple
systems and information about the people in order to be useful in
understanding the person's development. This is what was referred
to above as ecological validity by Bronfenbrenner [1], which he
determined to be important in research design. The model for research
design proposed for this is called the “process-person-context model”
[3]. This design incorporates the multiple systems interrelated in an
individual’s life and attempts to study their effects on the person.
Bronfenbrenner described human development occurring throughout
the life course of the person with “developmental outcomes of today
inuencing the developmental outcomes of tomorrow”.
Empirical support for the Ecological Systems theory can be found
in many of the studies previously cited within this article [2, 3, 10,
41]. Even prior to the introduction of the theory, Bronfenbrenner had
developed an impressive list of empirical support for the theory [23-
31, 33, 34]. Other researchers and theorists have also contributed to
the empirical support for the theory [9, 16-18, 22, 36].
These empirical ndings provide the theory with strong evidence
through which it may be supported. To create a strong foundation
of support for the theory, Bronfenbrenner crafted the theory after
a thorough examination of human developmental theories that
preceded it [5]. Bronfenbrenner [1] referenced empirical supports
from studies ranging from the 1930s through the 1970s, specically
citing theorists such as Lewin, Freud, Thomas and Thomas, Sullivan,
Mead, and Dewey in the development of the theory. Bronfenbrenner
and Evans [4] wrote that the development of theory came though
empirical ndings "by suggesting alternative, more-differentiated or
more parsimonious theoretical formulations that might accommodate
existing empirical ndings" (p. 117).
Conclusion
Ecological Systems theory was introduced as a theoretical concept
by Bronfenbrenner [1] over 30 years ago; however, his research
based on the theoretical underpinnings began several decades before
the theory’s inception. Bronfenbrenner [3] sought to develop a theory
of human development that would consider the inuences of all of
the systems that play a role in impacting the lived experiences of
the individual no matter how remote the inuence. Today, many of
these concepts are commonplace in social work practice (micro-,
meso-, and macrosystems, for instance); however, at the time of their
development, they helped to alter the prism through which social
scientists would come to examine human development.
Conicts of interest/Competing interests: I have no
known conicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1983a). Beyond policies without people:
An ecological perspective on child and family policy. In. E.
Zigler, S. Kagan, & E. Klugman (Eds.) Children, families, and
government: Perspectives on American social policy (p. 393-
414). Cambridge University Press.
3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human
development. In T. Husen & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.). The
International Encyclopedia of Education 2nd Edition, Volume 3
(p. 1643-1647). Pergamon.
4. Bronfenbrenner, U. & Evans, G. (2000). Developmental science
in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models,
research designs and empirical ndings. Social Development,
9 (1), p. 115-125.
5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1951). Toward an integrated theory of
personality. In R. Blake & G. Ramsey (Eds.) Perception:
An approach to personality (p. 206-257). The Ronald Press
Company.
6. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General Systems theory:
Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller, Inc.
7. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1951c). General Systems theory: A new
approach to unity of science. Human Biology, 23 (4), 336-345.
8. Bronfenbrenner, U. & Ceci, S. (1994). Nature-nurture
conceptualized in developmental perspective: a bioecological
model. Psychological Review, 101 (4), 568-586.
9. Germain, C. (1978). General-Systems theory and ego
psychology: An ecological perspective. Social Service Review,
52 (4), 535-550.
10. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context
for human development: research perspectives. Developmental
Psychology, 22 (6), 723-742.
11. Brim, O. (1975). Macro-structural inuences on child
development and the need for childhood social indicators.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45 (4), 516-524.
12. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1983b). The ecology of cognitive
development: Research models and fugitive ndings. In R.
Wozniak & K. Fischer (Eds.) Development in context: Acting
and thinking in specic environments (p. 3-44). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
13. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1951b). Problems of General Systems
theory. Human Biology, 23 (4), 302-312.
14. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1951a). Towards a physical theory of
organic teleology: Feedback and dynamics. Human Biology, 23
(4), 346-361.
15. Hong, J., Algood, C., Chiu, Y., & Ai-Ping Lee, S. (2011). An
ecological understanding of kinship foster care in the United
States. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 863-872. doi:
10.1007/s10826-011-9454-3
16. Meade, C. & Ickovics, J. (2005). Systematics review of sexual
risk among pregnant and mothering teens in the USA: Pregnancy
as an opportunity for integrated prevention of STD and repeat
pregnancy. Social Science & Medicine, 60 (4) 661-678. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.015
17. Booth, J., Ayers, S., & Marsiglia, F. (2012). Perceived
neighborhood safety and psychological distress: Exploring
protective factors. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 39
(4), 137-156.
Page 6 of 6
J Pub Health Issue Pract JPHIP, an open access journal
Volume 4. 2020. 170 ISSN- 2581-7264
18. Kang, P. & Romo, L. (2011). The role of religious involvement
on depression, risky behavior, and academic performance
among Korean American adolescents. Journal of Adolescence,
34, 767-778. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.08.003
19. Fernando, G. (2012). Bloodied but unbowed: Resilience
examined in a south Asian community. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 82 (3), 367-275. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-
0025.2012.01163.x
20. Jones, J. (2007). Exposure to chronic community violence:
Resilience in African American children. Journal of Black
Psychology, 33 (2), 125-149. doi: 10.1177/0095798407299511
21. Kliewer, W. & Murrelle, L. (2007). Risk and protective factors
for adolescent substance abuse: Finding from a study in selected
Central American countries. The Journal of Adolescent Health:
Ofcial publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 40
(5), 448-455.
22. Pack, M. (2013). Vicarious traumatization and resilience: An
ecological systems approach to sexual abuse counselors’ trauma
and stress. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 5 (2),
69-76.
23. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1961b). Some familial antecedents of
responsibility and leadership in adolescents. In L. Petrulo, & B.
Bass (Eds.) Leadership and interpersonal behavior (p. 239-271).
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
24. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975b). The origins of alienation. In U.
Bronfenbrenner & M. Mahoney (Eds.) Inuences on human
development 2nd edition (p. 485-501). The Dryden Press.
25. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1961a). Family authority structure and
adolescent behavior. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual
International Congress of Psychology, 1, p. 414-418.
26. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1967). The Psychological Costs of Quality
and Equality in Education. Child Development, 38 (4), 909-925.
27. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974a). Developmental research, public
policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child Development, 45
(1), 1-5. doi: 10.2307/1127743
28. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1958). Socialization and social class
through time and space. In M. Maccoby, T. Newcomb, & E.
Hartley (Eds.). Readings in social psychology 3rd edition (p.
400-425). Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
29. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974b). Is early intervention effective?
Daycare and early education, November, p. 14-18.
30. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of
education. Educational researcher, 5 (9), 5-15.
31. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1973). Developmental research and public
policy. Association for research in nervous and mental disease,
15, 352-380.
32. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975a). Reality and research in the
ecology of human development. Proceedings of the American
philosophical society, 119 (6), 439-469.
33. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1959). On the concept of modeling in
interpersonal perception. Acta Psychologica, 15 (1), p. 520.
34. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Doing your own thing—our
undoing. Child psychiatry and human development, 8 (1), 3-10.
35. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1972). Two worlds of childhood: U.S. and
U.S.S.R., Russell Sage Foundation.
36. Gitterman, A. (1996). Ecological perspective: Response to
Professor Jerry Wakeeld. Social Service Review, 70 (3), p.
472-476.
37. Wertsch, J. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological
perspectives on human development. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 23 (1), 143-151.
38. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1967). General theory of systems:
Application to psychology. Social Science Information, 6, p.
125-136.
39. Gitterman, A. & Wayne, J. (2003). Turning points in group life:
Using high-tension moments to promote group purpose and
mutual aid. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary
Human Services, 84 (3), p. 433-440.
40. Gitterman, A. & Germain, C. (1976). Social work practice: A
life model. Social Service Review, 50 (4), p. 601-610.
41. Bronfenbrenner, U. & Crouter, A. (1983). The evolution of
environmental models in developmental research. The handbook
of child psychology, 4 (1), p. 357-414.
