1.4: Bronfenbrenner

Bioecological Systems Theory

Urie Bronfenbrenner was one of the first psychologists to adopt a holistic perspective on human development via his Bioecological Systems Theory, which had a widespread influence on the way psychologists and other social scientists approach the study of human beings and their environments (New World Encyclopedia, 2020).

Bronfenbrenner emphasized the importance of the social environments in which children are raised, and saw the breakdown of the family as the leading cause of the ever-growing rates of alienation, apathy, rebellion, delinquency, and violence among American youth. His work led to new directions in research and the design of programs and policies affecting the well-being of children and families.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Brofenbrenner's Ecological Theory diagram. (CC BY SA; Alyla.K via Wikimedia)

Bronfenbrenner’s primary theoretical contribution was his Bioecological Systems Theory, in which he identified four types of nested systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). Bronfenbrenner recognized that is it necessary to understand how not only the family or school influences human development, but how broader influences do as well.

The four systems are:

• Microsystem: Immediate environments such as family, school, peer group, neighborhood, and childcare environments.
• Mesosystem: A system comprised of connections between immediate environments (i.e., a child’s home and school).
• Exosystem: External environmental settings which only indirectly affect development, such as parent’s workplace.
• Macrosystem: The larger cultural context (Eastern vs. Western culture, national economy, political culture, subculture).

Later a fifth system was added:

• Chronosystem: The patterning of environmental events and transitions over the course of life.

Each system contains roles, norms, and rules that can powerfully shape development (See Table 1.). For example, in order to understand the issues a learner is having with math, we can’t simply look at that individual and what challenges they face directly with the subject. We have to look at the interactions that occur between the teacher and the child. Perhaps the teacher needs to make modifications as well. The teacher may be responding to regulations made by the school, such as new expectations for students in math or constraints on time that interferes with the teacher’s ability to instruct. These new demands may be a response to national efforts to promote math and science deemed important by political leaders in response to relations with other countries at a particular time in history.

Table 1. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model

Name of System	Description of System
Microsystems	Microsystems impact a child directly. These are the people with whom the child interacts such as parents, peers, and teachers. The relationship between individuals and those around them need to be considered. For example, to appreciate what is going on with a student in math, the relationship between the student and teacher should be known.
Mesosystems	Mesosystems are interactions between environments closely surrounding the individual. The relationship between parents and schools, for example, will indirectly affect the child.
Exosystem	Larger institutions such as the mass media or the healthcare system are referred to as the ecosystem. These have an impact on families, peers, and schools that operate under policies and regulations found in these institutions.
Macrosystems	We find cultural values and beliefs at the level of macrosystems. These larger ideals and expectations inform institutions that will ultimately impact the individual.
Chronosystem	All of this happens in a historical context referred to as the chronosystem. Cultural values change over time, as do the policies of educational institutions or governments in certain political climates. Development occurs at a point in time.

According to the Bioecological theory, if the relationships in the immediate microsystem break down, the child will not have the tools to explore other parts of his environment. Children looking for the affirmations that should be present in the child/parent (or child/other important adult) relationship look for attention in inappropriate places. These deficiencies tend to show themselves in adolescence as anti-social behavior, lack of self-discipline, and inability to provide self-direction (Addison, 1992).

The major assumptions of The (Bio)Ecology of Human Development, have had widespread influence on the way psychologists and other social scientists approach the study of human beings and their environments (Bronfenbrenner, 1981). It has been said that before Bronfenbrenner, child psychologists studied the child, sociologists examined the family, anthropologists the society, economists the economic framework of the times, and political scientists the political structure.

As a result of Bronfenbrenner’s groundbreaking work in human ecology, these environments, from the family to economic and political structures, have come to be viewed as part of the life course from childhood through adulthood. The “bioecological” approach to human development broke down barriers among the social sciences and built bridges between the disciplines that have allowed findings to emerge about which key elements in the larger social structure, and across societies, are vital for optimal human development.

The Human Ecology Framework

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Protests for gun reform in the United States. (CC by SA 2.0; Lorie Shaull via Flickr)

The human ecology framework assumes that families interact within multiple environments that mutually influence each other. These environments include the biophysical (personal variables), the microsystem (the systems in immediate surroundings, such as family, neighborhood, church, work, or school), the mesosystem (the ways in which these immediate systems connect, such as the relationships between family and work), the exosystem (the larger social system, such as the stress of another family member’s job), and the macrosystem (the cultural values and the larger social system, such as immigration policy that influences admission and social system access) (Ballard et al., 2019).

In the context of a refugee family, the family might be influenced by their biophysical (e.g., whether or not members were injured as they fled persecution), their microsystem (e.g., parental conflict while fleeing), their mesosystem (e.g., teachers and school personnel who are struggling with their own trauma from fleeing conflict and thus their ability to provide robust services is impaired), their exosystem (e.g., local leaders who do not consult with women living in shelters regarding their resources needs and don’t provide feminine hygiene products or children’s toys), and countless other environments (Hoffman, M. A., & Kruczek, T., 2011). The family may have access to and be able to directly influence their mesosystem and at the same time feel powerless to make changes in the exosystem. Each of these environments will contribute to their coping.

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): Child protesting for immigrants. (CC BY 2.0; Fibonacci Blue via Flickr)

With its focus on interaction within multiple environments, the human ecology framework is an incredibly useful lens to employ cross-cultural contexts such as when considering immigrant families. For example, a researcher could ask, “How do Hmong immigrant families manage financial resources in their new environment in the United States?” and “How did Hmong families manage their financial resources while still living in Laos?” The assumptions and central concepts of human ecology theory would apply equally in either culture. The needs, values, and environment would be sensitively identified within each culture (Solheim, C. A., & Yang, P. N. D., 2010).

Additionally, human ecology theory assumes that families are intentional in their decision-making and that they work toward biological sustenance, economic maintenance, and psychosocial function. As patterns in the social environment are more and more threatening to the family’s quality of life in these three areas, the system will be more and more likely to seek change, possibly by a move to a new country.

The family system has certain needs, including physical needs for resources and interpersonal needs for relationships. If their current situation is not meeting these needs, the family system will engage in management to meet these needs within their value system.

---

References

Addison, J. T. (1992). Urie Bronfenbrenner. Human Ecology, 20(2), 16-20.

Ballard, J., Wieling, E., Solheim, C., Dwanyen, L. (2019, November 20). Immigrant and Refugee Families. (2nd ed.) University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6(1), 187-249.

Hoffman, M. A., & Kruczek, T. (2011). A bioecological model of mass trauma: Individual, community, and societal effects. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(8), 1087-1127.

Solheim, C. A., & Yang, P. N. D. (2010). Understanding generational differences in financial literacy in Hmong immigrant families. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 38(4), 435-454.