Urie Bronfenbrenner's Theory of Human Development: Its Evolution From Ecology to Bioecology
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
EDINETE MARIA ROSA Federal University of Espı́rito Santo, Brazil
JONATHAN TUDGE University of North Carolina, Greensboro∗
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Theory of Human
Development: Its Evolution From Ecology
to Bioecology
We describe the evolution, over three phases, of the time it was first proposed in the 1970s until
Bronfenbrenner’s theory from an ecological to Bronfenbrenner’s death in 2005. It is therefore
a bioecological theory. Phase 1 (1973–1979) unfortunate that too many scholars treat the the-
culminated in the publication of The Ecol- ory as though it deals solely with the influence
ogy of Human Development (1979). Phase 2 of context on children’s or adolescents’ devel-
(1980–1993) saw almost immediate modifica- opment and take no account of what came to be
tions to the theory, with more attention paid the central aspect of the theory, namely proxi-
to the role of the individual and greater con- mal processes, and how person characteristics,
cern with developmental processes. In Phase 3 context, and historical time mutually influence
(1993–2006), proximal processes were defined those processes (see Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield,
and placed at the heart of bioecological theory, & Karnik, 2009). Moreover, although Bronfen-
and from 1998, the Process-Person-Context- brenner described it as a theory of human devel-
Time (PPCT) model was described as the opment, from the start the developing individual
theory’s appropriate research design. Given the was consistently viewed as influencing, and
extent of these changes, and to avoid theoretical being influenced by, the environment. The fam-
incoherence, scholars should be cautious about ily thus plays a key role: it does so as a microsys-
stating that their research is based on Bron- tem context in which development occurs; it
fenbrenner’s theory without specifying which does so in terms of the personal characteristics
version they are using. of all individuals in the family; and most impor-
tant, it does so in terms of the interactions among
family members as part of proximal processes.
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human devel- It is also important to point out that although
opment underwent considerable changes from Bronfenbrenner may be best known as the
developer of the theory that we describe in this
article, he was also intensely interested in the
Postgraduate Program in Psychology, Federal University of family as an institution. During the years that he
Espı́rito Santo, Brazil (edineter@gmail.com). was developing his theory, he also wrote many
∗ Department of Human Development and Family Studies, papers on such topics as social-class influences
155 Stone, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC on child rearing, the effects of maternal
27402 (jrtudge@uncg.edu). employment on children’s development, the
Key Words: bioecological theory, ecological theory, human problems associated with treating some families
development, PPCT model, Urie Bronfenbrenner. as being at a ‘‘deficit,’’ and family policies that
Journal of Family Theory & Review 5 (December 2013): 243–258 243
DOI:10.1111/jftr.12022244 Journal of Family Theory & Review
are needed for families to grow healthily (for a of the characteristics and influences of different
review, see Tudge, 2013). Most relevant is the contexts (microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem,
fact that there was cross-fertilization between and macrosystem). According to Bronfenbren-
his more family-oriented writings and those that ner and Evans, the following two phases each
have a more theoretical focus. began with publications in the major handbooks
The bioecological theory of human devel- of the day (Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983;
opment, initially termed an ecological model Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
or approach, was originally proposed by Bron- Our dating of the phases is necessarily
fenbrenner to explain how human development somewhat imprecise, as we rely on date of
occurs, focusing largely on the impact of con- publication rather than the date of writing
text. Nonetheless, as denoted by his use of the and submission for publication. We have, for
word ecology, Bronfenbrenner clearly viewed example, identified 1993 as both ending the
development as emerging from the interaction second phase and starting the third phase. It
of individual and context. Subsequent refor- is quite clear, however, that whereas the ideas
mulations of his original ideas resulted as he in Bronfenbrenner’s 1993 chapter fit with those
came to stress the role played by the individual; expressed in his other publications from 1980
the impact of time; and most important of all, onwards, his coauthored paper of the same
proximal processes. date (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993) marked
Bioecological theory in its current or mature a dramatic shift in thinking.
form specifies that researchers should study Regardless of the precise timing of these
the settings in which a developing individual phases, what is absolutely clear is that the
spends time and the relations with others in theory underwent significant changes between
the same settings, the personal characteristics of its inception and its final state. Unfortunately,
the individual (and those with whom he or she as Tudge et al. (2009) pointed out, this fact has
typically interacts), both development over time been ignored by many scholars. Tudge et al.
and the historical time in which these individuals analyzed 25 studies published between 2001
live, and the mechanisms that drive development and 2008 (i.e., well after the beginning of the
(proximal processes). final stage in the theory’s development), whose
From a methodological point of view, authors stated that their research was based on
bioecological theory privileges the study of Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Of those, only four
proximal processes that are likely to lead to were based on the most recent form of the
healthy development, with the developing theory, and most described the theory simply
individuals of interest being distinguished in as one of contextual influences on development,
at least one relevant individual characteristic completely ignoring the centerpiece of the theory
and studied in more than a single context in its final incarnation: proximal processes. As
(almost always the typical settings in which Tudge et al. argued, there is nothing wrong with
the individuals are to be found). The theory deliberately basing one’s research on an earlier
was formulated, as Bronfenbrenner expressed version of the theory or even on a subset of its
it, to examine not ‘‘the forces that have shaped key concepts; however, for theoretical confusion
human development in the past, but . . . those to be avoided, one should be explicit about the
that may already be operating today to influence specific theoretical basis for the study. Equally
what human beings may became tomorrow’’ important, scholars should pay greater attention
(Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000, p. 117). to the fact that while theorists are still alive and
Bronfenbrenner was a theorist who ques- publishing, their theories are likely to develop.
tioned his own propositions, and he himself We believe that for our field to develop,
drew attention to distinct phases in the develop- research should be theoretically driven, with
ment of his theory. These phases, however, are studies explicitly designed to test theory, calling
not quite the same as those that we have iden- into question its major concepts, supporting
tified. Bronfenbrenner and Evans (2000) noted them, or expanding on them. But this can occur
that the first theory-related publications were only if scholars base their work on an accurate
published from 1970 to 1979, marking the first reading of the theory as it currently exists or if
phase in the theory’s evolution. Bronfenbren- they have explicitly tried to test an earlier version
ner and Evans wrote that in this first phase the of the theory. Supporting or attacking a reduced,
theory concentrated primarily on a description old, or simply incorrect version of the theoryThe Evolution of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 245
is neither helpful nor appropriate. Therefore, (e.g., home, school, neighborhood) and with
our goal here is to describe the three phases people with whom those children either live or
in the development of Bronfenbrenner’s theory are familiar (1973, 1977c, 1979b). Lab-based
as it matured into its final form, analyzing the research, by contrast, is typically conducted in
principle characteristics and reformulations of an unfamiliar setting by a researcher unknown
each phase. To attain this goal, we first identified to the child (1973, 1977a), something that
all the published papers by Bronfenbrenner or Bronfenbrenner argued calls into question the
with Bronfenbrenner as a first author that were validity of the results (1973, 1979b). Even
related to the construction of his theory of human when research was conducted in the settings
development. We were considerably aided in in which children are situated, Bronfenbrenner
this task by the bibliographic chapter published noted that the researchers’ focus was far more
by Lüscher and Jones (1995), which provides on the organism (the person) than on the setting
a fairly complete and accurate listing of all (1975, 1977a, 1979b), the latter being described
his scholarly work published until 1994. To in terms of a static environment unrelated to
avoid continual repetition of Bronfenbrenner’s any system of values (1976). Bronfenbrenner
name, we cite his single-authored papers here by stressed the necessity to take into account more
publication date only. than two persons (the researcher and the subject)
in the setting in which the child is situated and to
focus on the developmental processes involved
PHASE 1 (1973–1979) in attaining any developmental outcomes (1973,
In Phase 1, Bronfenbrenner named his emerging 1974, 1976, 1977a, 1977c, 1978, 1979a, 1979b).
theory either an ecological approach to human Finally, Bronfenbrenner argued that the absence
development (1974, 1975, 1977a) or an ecolog- of appropriate research was due to the lack of a
ical model of human development (1976, 1978, theory that took seriously the contexts in which
1979b), referring to it on occasion as a science human beings live (1979a).
(1977c) or a theoretical perspective (1979b). These research limitations meant that Bron-
Interestingly, the roots of the theory can be seen fenbrenner was unable to find answers to the
as far back as a chapter published in the 1960s, in many questions asked by those with responsi-
which Bronfenbrenner (1961) showed that ado- bility for social policies—questions primarily
lescents’ responsibility and leadership varied related to practical questions about the lives
according to the parent–adolescent relationship, of children and their families (1974, 1977a).
child gender, and the family’s social-class back- Bronfenbrenner argued that research should be
ground. Bronfenbrenner’s publications during informed by social policy, the opposite of what
this period were characterized by analysis and scholars typically think, which is that research
discussion of relevant research conducted by should guide social policy (1974, 1975, 1977a,
others in psychology and human development, 1979b), and that researchers needed a better
most of which he used to demonstrate their understanding of the implications of the pro-
methodological limitations. found changes in family configurations and
relations that were occurring during the 1960s
and 1970s in the United States (1975, 1976,
Motives and Influences 1979b). His analyses of these social changes and
Bronfenbrenner’s main motive for starting this the negative impacts they had on the psycho-
endeavor was based on two primary pillars: the logical development of children, adolescents,
limitations of much contemporary research in and their parents illustrated the importance of
psychology, in particular studies conducted in social class and race (1973, 1975, 1977a). His
laboratory settings (1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, concern with these issues led Bronfenbrenner
1977c, 1979a, 1979b), and the demands of to conclude that ‘‘further advance in the scien-
politicians interested in social policies relevant tific understanding of the basic intrapsychic and
to children, adolescents, and their families (1973, interpersonal processes of human development
1974, 1975, 1977a, 1979a, 1979b). He critiqued requires their investigation in [the] actual envi-
the artificial and limited ways in which research ronment, both immediate and remote, in which
was conducted as being inadequate for the the human beings live’’ (1979b, p. 12).
study of processes of development that occur A number of scholars greatly influenced
in the settings that are most familiar to children Bronfenbrenner’s thinking during this first phase246 Journal of Family Theory & Review
of the development of his theory. One was Kurt interconnected structures, with those closer
Lewin and his notion of the phenomenological to the developing individual being enclosed
field, expressed topologically, that constituted within those further afield (1976, 1977b, 1977c,
the person’s ecological environment (1976, 1978, 1979b). He adapted Brim’s (1975) termi-
1977b, 1977c, 1978, 1979b). Other important nology of microstructure, mesostructure, and
influences included the Soviet psychologists macrostructure and provided the following
Luria, Leontiev, and Vygotsky and their idea names: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem,
of research that leads to social transformation and macrosystem. However, given that Bronfen-
(1977a, 1977c, 1978, 1979b); Bronfenbrenner’s brenner viewed the environment as intrinsically
initial mentor, Dearborn, who noted that one connected to the individuals within it, he often
had to change something to understand it and used the qualifier ecological when referring to
discussed the importance of operationalizing the environment. His focus, in other words,
research in context (1975, 1976, 1977a, 1977c, was not simply on the environment, or context,
1978); and the sociologists Thomas and Thomas, but on the ecological system that included the
who held that it is not only the objective aspects developing individual (1976).
of an environment that have a developmental Bronfenbrenner defined the microsystem as
effect, using the celebrated phrase: ‘‘Situations the most proximal setting, with particular
perceived as real are real in their consequences,’’ physical characteristics, in which a person
cited several times by Bronfenbrenner during is situated, such as the home, child care,
this period (1976, p. 170; 1977c, p. 529; 1979b, playground, and place of work, and in which
p. 127). the developing person can interact in a face-to-
face way with others (1974, 1979b). The setting
Concepts and Definitions is one in which activities and interpersonal
roles and relations engaged in over time are
What did Bronfenbrenner mean by the ecol- the constitutive elements (1976, 1977c, 1978,
ogy of human development? This key concept, 1979b).
according to Bronfenbrenner (1977a), was first He defined the mesosystem as the relations
used in the realm of human development by among two or more microsystems in which
Barker and Wright (1954) but had little effect in the developing person actively participates
demonstrating ‘‘how environments change, and (1977c, 1978, 1979b). In other words, ‘‘the
the implications of this change for the human mesosystem is a system of microsystems’’
beings who live and grow in these environ- (1976, p. 163; 1977b, p. 46; 1978, p. 6;
ments’’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1975, p. 439). Thus, 1979b, p. 25). It is formed, or widened,
Bronfenbrenner (1979b) argued, contemporary each time an individual enters a new setting
studies of human development were studies out- (1979b), and it is diminished when the opposite
of-context rather than ecological studies that happens. The developmental characteristics of
should examine the interrelations between the the mesosystem are similar to those of the
developing person and the changing micro and microsystem, the main difference being that
macro context (1977a). As he pointed out, rather than the activities and interpersonal
‘‘Ecology implies an adjustment between organ- roles and relations occurring within a single
ism and environment’’ (1975, p. 439). Or, as he microsystem, they occur across settings (1979b).
wrote in a more complete definition: Given the contemporary propensity to study
development in a single context, Bronfenbrenner
The ecology of human development involves presented a large number of testable hypotheses
the scientific study of the progressive, mutual related to the ways in which the mesosystem
accommodation between an active, growing
might influence human development, as a way to
human being and the changing properties of the
immediate settings in which the developing person
encourage scholars to study development across
lives, as this process is affected by relations settings (1979b).
between these settings, and by the larger contexts Bronfenbrenner defined the exosystem as the
within which the settings are embedded. (1979b, ‘‘third circle of the ecological model’’ (1977c,
p. 21) p. 526), being an ecological setting in which
the developing person of interest is not situated,
Bronfenbrenner conceived of the environ- and thus does not participate actively within
ment topologically as an arrangement of four it, but nonetheless experiences its influenceThe Evolution of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 247 (1977b, 1979b), and at times can also influence it the environment (1977b, 1977c, 1978, 1979b), (1979b), whether formally or informally (1976, or a combination of these factors (1979b). Its 1977c, 1978). This effect is indirect, such as occurrence can be either a consequence or a when what occurs in a parent’s workplace has a motive for a developmental process (1979b) and follow-on effect within the home (assuming that exerts its impact not only on the developing the child is the developing person of interest) person but also on the system of which that (1974, 1978). The exosystem has an important individual is a part, such as the family, a group role in this first phase of the theory because of friends, and colleagues at work (1977c, 1978). politicians develop a given society’s social The operationalization of an ecological- policies within it. Bronfenbrenner (1974) had transition study requires a ‘‘pre–post’’ design in mind programs such as those that facilitate (1977b, 1977c, 1978, 1979b) with real situations young children’s attending a child-care center and in natural settings (1978, 1979b), involving and policy decisions about the type of care and the same person in different activities and roles education that children receive there. and almost always in more than one ecological The macrosystem differs fundamentally from environment (1978). Bronfenbrenner pointed the other levels of context, embracing the out three essential characteristics of ecological institutional systems of a culture or subculture, environments. First, they must be understood such as the economic, social, education, systemically or interdependently (1977c, 1978). legal, and political systems (1976, 1978). Thus, what happens or fails to happen in any Bronfenbrenner stated that the influence of the given environment depends to a large extent macrosystem on the other ecological settings is on events and relationships in other related reflected in how the lower systems (e.g., family, environments (1976). The consequences for school) function (1977b). The hallmark of the ecological research is that researchers must macrosystem is its overarching belief system consider the interaction of systems in which or ideology (1979b). As a result, the daily people participate, not only the influence of experiences of children in any given societal, (and their influence on) the immediate setting in socioeconomic, ethnic, or religious group tend to which the developing individuals of interest are be similar (1977b, 1979b). Macrosystem studies situated (1976, 1977b, 1977c, 1978). are those that compare systems with different Second, in ecological environments develop- basic patterns of social organization or those ment occurs via processes, understood as modes that deal with changes that fundamentally alter of interaction among people (1973, 1977c), the characteristics of a given society (1977c). maintained in the course of reciprocal relations During this phase Bronfenbrenner paid between them and with their environment (1973, particular attention to the normative changes 1976, 1977a, 1977b, 1977c, 1978). Bronfenbren- in roles and environments that occur in people’s ner therefore argued that researchers conducting lives, terming this phenomenon an ecological ecological research must consider more than one transition (1976, 1977b, 1977c, 1978, 1979b). person in the setting, including the researcher’s An ecological transition is a typical example of own influence on the subject (1977a, 1977c, a mutual accommodation between an organism 1978). He termed second-order effects the effec- and its setting—in other words, the essence tive participation of a third person (N + 2) in of what he conceptualized as the ecology of a developing person’s life (1974, 1976, 1977a, human development. In several of his papers, 1977c, 1978, 1979a, 1979b), and third-order Bronfenbrenner placed the phenomenon at the effects (1976) or higher-order effects (1976, level of the mesosystem (1977c, 1978), such 1978) those situations in which more people as when a child goes from home to a child- are involved. care center or a young adult leaves school Third, ecological environments are consti- for the world of work. However, taking a tuted in a phenomenological field that orients broader perspective, he stated that it could occur the developing person’s actions and interactions in any of the four levels of the ecological (1976, 1978). The environment should thus be environment across the entire life course considered as it is perceived and understood by (1979b). Thus, an ecological transition can occur the person, meaning that it is partly constituted given biological changes related to physical of the world of imagination, fantasy, and unreal- maturation or how individuals deal with those ity (1977b). From a methodological perspective, changes (1976, 1977c, 1978, 1979b), changes in a phenomenological analysis is the analysis of
248 Journal of Family Theory & Review
how each participant perceives the setting and knowledge in a particular area is to identify
the various elements contained within it (1976, promising directions for future investigation’’
1977a, 1977c). (1986a, p. 734).
Bronfenbrenner stressed that human develop- However, he also identified a need to reassess,
ment involves both continuity and change. There extend, and even renounce (1989) some aspects
is a progressive change in the person’s character- of what he had written in his 1979 volume.
istics over time and space (1975, 1978, 1979b), Specifically, in addition to paying greater
which signifies continuity both in the person and attention to the role played by the individual
in the environment (1975), as well as changes in his or her own development, he attended
by virtue of the dynamic relations among the more to processes of development and focused
person, the environment, and the other people explicit attention on the passage of time. He
within that environment, all engaged in recipro- also revised his concepts of development and
cal activities that (in other words, foreshadowing of ecological environments (particularly the
proximal processes) become progressively more microsystem and macrosystem) and formulated
complex (1973, 1977a, 1979a) in an enduring a new research paradigm for the study of
pattern of activities (1973, 1975, 1979a). ‘‘The human development—a model first termed the
growing person acquires a more extended, differ- Person-Process-Context model (1986a, 1986b;
entiated, and valid conception of the ecological Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983) and then the
environment, and becomes motivated and able Process-Person-Context model (1988, 1989).
to engage in activities that reveal the proper- This model would be revised and broadened
ties of, sustain, or restructure that environment in the next and final phase of the theory’s
at levels of similar or greater complexity in development.
form and content’’ (1979b, p. 27). The child’s Among the authors who influenced Bronfen-
development will be more successful if the rela- brenner during this phase, several names stand
tionships established in ecological environments out including several who had been influential
are with people with whom the child has estab- in his Phase 1 thinking: Kurt Lewin, who was
lished a positive emotional attachment that is no longer cited for his topological notions of
both mutual and permanent (1973, 1979a), if the environment but who provided the basic
those environments provide the opportunity for conceptualization from which came Bronfen-
the observing of and engaging in activities with brenner’s new definition of human development
the assistance of people who have better under- (1988, 1989, 1993); Lev Vygotsky and Alexan-
standing and skill, and if they encourage the der Luria, who strengthened Bronfenbrenner’s
performance of skills acquired with help in other perception of human development as a process
settings and in other relationships (1979a). varying as a function of the cultural context in
which people are situated (1983, 1989, 1993);
PHASE 2 (1980–1993) Glen Elder, who illustrated the chronosystem in
his research; Cecil Mary Drillien, a doctor and
Motives and Influences professor of children’s health and welfare, who
Bronfenbrenner’s main goal in this period was provided data that proved highly relevant for
to show the ways in which the environment the Process-Person-Context model (1989); and
was conceptualized, either theoretically or Anne Crouter, who coauthored the influential
empirically, in contemporary research in human 1983 Handbook chapter.
development and deal with a lacuna identified in
his Phase 1 writings—the lack of any explanation
Concepts and Definitions
of the role played by person characteristics in
the course of development. These objectives Several of Bronfenbrenner’s papers during
were attained in various papers (1983, 1986a, Phase 2 focused on the different types of
1986b, 1988, 1989; Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, research models that had been used in con-
1983) in which he not only identified the temporary studies of human development. He
different paradigms existing in the literature but and Crouter defined a research model as ‘‘the
also presented his own, ecological, paradigm conceptualization of the environment, and its
(1993). As Bronfenbrenner himself affirmed, role in development, that is explicit in the oper-
‘‘from the scientist’s perspective, perhaps the ational definitions employed by the investiga-
most important function of a review of existing tor’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983, p. 359).The Evolution of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 249 Bronfenbrenner used this conceptualization as process whereby the developmental outcome he sought to trace the evolution of such models was attained (1989). Bronfenbrenner cited used in research in this area. Drillien’s research with premature and full- Social-address models are those that are based term babies as one example of evidence on the geographic or social locale in which peo- of the interaction between biological and ple live. ‘‘The design involves nothing more than environmental forces acting in conjunction and comparison of the psychological characteristics leading the person (the baby) to developmentally of children or adults living in different social appropriate outcomes. In this model ‘‘the term environments (e.g., class, nationality, family synergism is used to describe a phenomena . . . structure, etc.)’’ (1986b, p. 289). The model’s in which the joint operation of two or more main limitation is that human development is forces produces an effect that is greater than the treated as though it were solely dependent on sum of the individual effects’’ (Bronfenbrenner, environmental factors (1989), and it reveals 1989, p. 199). neither the processes by which the environment Despite the major advance of this model influences the developing individual nor the in comparison to the others, Bronfenbrenner person characteristics implicated in that process alerted readers to its limitations, referring specif- (1983, 1986a, 1988; Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, ically to the fact that scholars did not refer to 1983). As a result, Bronfenbrenner argued, characteristics of all of the individuals involved studies using this model do not provide any in any given interaction (1986a). For example, data capable of guiding future interventions on Bronfenbrenner (1989) examined the ways in structure or process that could affect the course which Drillien’s study was conducted to assess of development (1986a, 1986b). Moreover, pro- the developmental outcomes relating to mothers’ ponents of this model assume that all individuals interactions with their babies. In this study, the living in the same environment are equally outcomes were analyzed taking into account the affected by it, regardless of their biological or interactions and processes mediated by maternal psychological characteristics (1988). responsiveness to their baby’s solicitations as a Person-context models move beyond social- function of both the environment (family socioe- address models in that they include participants’ conomic status and neighborhood) and person person characteristics (e.g., sex, biological con- characteristics (the baby’s birth weight). How- dition) of the different groups under consider- ever, the responsiveness of the babies toward ation. This allows a variety of combinations their mothers was not considered. In other words, of person characteristics and contexts in the the relation was examined only in a unidirec- analysis of development (1988, 1989). How- tional, not bidirectional, fashion. ever, this model still is limited in its ability Another problem that was generally noted in to describe development because it is unable this and the other models was the absence of any to explain the process by which it occurs consideration of time as an important component (1988). of the research. This meant, Bronfenbrenner Process-context models allow the evaluation argued, that researchers generally did not take of the influence of some external setting on into account development as a process of a specific developmental feature, such as the continuity and change (1988). Those who did impact of parents’ workplace experiences on the take it into account were using, he suggested, a dynamics and functioning of the family (1986a). chronosystem model. In this model, the processes that translate the Chronosystem models are those in which contextual experiences into development are time is treated as being as important as the explicated, including not only the objective environment for human development (1986a, behaviors occurring in any given interaction but 1986b, 1988, 1989). Researchers using this also the relevant subjective psychological states, model take into account changes that occur such as beliefs and opinions of the interacting over the individual’s lifetime caused by events individuals (1988). or experiences (1989). These experiences may Person-process-context models are those in stem from the external environment (e.g., which the developmental outcomes are viewed a sibling’s birth, going to school, parents as stemming from interactions of the person separating) or within the developing individual’s and the context (1986b, 1988; Bronfenbrenner own organism (e.g., entering puberty, becoming & Crouter, 1983), thereby emphasizing the ill) (1988, 1989). Such changes can either
250 Journal of Family Theory & Review
be normative, when the change is expected, In similar fashion, Bronfenbrenner noted
such as school entry, or nonnormative, when instigative characteristics of the environment—
the occurrence is unexpected, such as the those that could serve in a constructive or
sudden death or serious illness of a family destructive way. In the first case are objects and
member (1986b, 1988). The main characteristic places that invite manipulation and exploration
of these experiences or events is that ‘‘they and thus promote developmental processes; in
alter the existing relation between person the second are those environments characterized
and environment, thus creating a dynamic by instability, unpredictability, and the absence
that may instigate developmental change’’ of any clear structure, characteristics that are
(Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 201). Bronfenbrenner prejudicial to development (1993).
(1989) stressed that research using this model During this phase, some changes were also
should accompany the developing individuals introduced in the concepts of the microsystem
of choice before and after the events assumed and macrosystem, in particular the emphasis
to influence development have happened. One given to the processes that occur in each of these
study that Bronfenbrenner often discussed to contexts. At the microsystem level Bronfenbren-
exemplify this model was Elder’s research about ner stressed the psychological characteristics of
the impact of the Great Depression on the lives all the individuals present in the immediate set-
of American children, adolescents, and adults ting in which interpersonal interactions occur.
(1986b, 1989, 1993). The microsystem was thus defined as a pattern
of interpersonal relations experienced face-to-
The ecological paradigm. At the end of his face in a given environment ‘‘containing other
discussion of the various paradigms found in persons with distinctive characteristics of tem-
contemporary research on human development, perament, personality, and systems of belief’’
Bronfenbrenner (1993) presented the ecolog- (1989, p. 227). These relations, which influence
ical paradigm as that in which development the distinctive patterns of psychological func-
is viewed as a function that involves interac- tioning, are altered as a function of the setting in
tions over time between a person and those which the developing person is situated (1993).
individuals with whom he or she has face-to- To understand the influence of culture,
face interactions in the immediate settings in developed over historical time, on developing
which the person is situated. He then described individuals, Bronfenbrenner relied, in part,
the characteristics that should be part of any on Vygotsky’s and Luria’s ideas. He thus
ecological study, including those both of the redefined the concept of the macrosystem as
individuals concerned and of the environments. ‘‘the overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and
He paid particular attention to what he referred exosystems characteristic of a given culture,
to as a person’s ‘‘instigative characteristics,’’ subculture, or other extended social structure’’
namely those that invited or discouraged reac- (1993, p. 25). This extended structure refers
tions from the environment, either promoting to a pattern of ‘‘similar belief system, social
or disrupting psychological growth (e.g., calm and economic resources, hazards, life-styles,
or fussy babies) and qualities that involve an etc. [such as] social classes, ethnic or religious
active orientation or interaction with the envi- groups’’ (1989, p. 229). He continued as follows:
ronment, such as a child’s initiative to initiate
or maintain reciprocal interactions with parents To the extent that it is practically possible, every
or other caregivers (1989, 1993). ‘‘Both types study of development in context should include
of developmentally instigative characteristics, a contrast between at least two macrosystems.
In terms of research design, this means that,
when manifested over time in particular settings,
whatever questions or hypotheses are under
tend to evoke complementary patterns of con- investigation, the analysis is conducted separately
tinuing environmental feedback, thus creating for each macro-domain, thus making it possible
progressively more complex developmental tra- to determine the extent to which the hypothesized
jectories that exhibit continuity through time’’ processes operate in the same way in different
(1989, p. 219). In the subsequent, and final, macrosystems. (1989, p. 231)
phase of the theory’s development, Bronfen-
brenner would describe in more detail these His 1993 paper included the same requirement,
person characteristics and their active influence but he did not mention it in any of his subsequent
on developmental processes. Phase 3 publications.The Evolution of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 251
Revising his earlier notion of the individual, To show how the PPCT model oper-
Bronfenbrenner (1993) emphasized the nature ated, Bronfenbrenner relied heavily on others’
of the person as a ‘‘highly complex biopsycho- research—from Drillien’s work published in the
logical organism—characterized by a distinc- 1960s through Elder’s study of the Great Depres-
tive complex of evolving interrelated, dynamic sion to Steinberg and colleagues’ research
capacities for thought, feeling, and action’’ into the effects of different parenting prac-
(p. 7), from which one can deduce his concern tices on adolescent outcomes. The results, and
to make more explicit the participation of the even more evidently the methods, of Drillien’s
person in his or her own development. Continu- research provided clear support for Bronfen-
ing to cite Vygotsky and Luria, Bronfenbrenner brenner’s position that proximal processes were
emphasized the interaction of biological factors the most powerful predictor of human devel-
and the contexts in which people develop: opment (1994, 1999, 2000; Bronfenbrenner &
Ceci, 1993, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
It is true that individuals can and often do 1998, 2006). Elder’s research also contributed
modify, select, reconstruct, and even create their greatly, as it showed the clear impact of histor-
environments. But this capacity emerges only to ical time on development (1994, 1999, 2001;
the extent that the person has been enabled to
Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbren-
engage in self-directed action as a joint function
not only of his biological endowment but also of ner & Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
the environment in which he or she developed. 1998, 2006). However, it is also worth not-
There is not one without the other. (1989, ing that Lewin’s influence can still be seen in
pp. 223–224) Bronfenbrenner’s view that ecological environ-
ments should be understood as involving the
Bronfenbrenner, in this second phase, thus phenomenological field of a developing per-
started to deal explicitly with the lacuna many son, formed by a set of nested structures (1994,
identified in his writings up to and including 1995a). During this phase, Bronfenbrenner con-
1979—the absence of a clear presentation of tinued his development of a theory that could
characteristics of the person and how they con- lead, via public policy, to improving the living
tribute to developmental processes. However, conditions for children, adolescents, and their
the challenge of constructing a framework for families by optimizing developmental outcomes
considering person characteristics, similar to that (1994, 1995b, 2000, 2001; Bronfenbrenner &
of context, was met only in the third and final Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000;
phase of his writings. Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006).
PHASE 3 (1993–2006) Definitions and Concepts
Motives and Influences If in the first phase it was necessary to explain
The primary objective of this phase of the Bronfenbrenner’s conception of an ecology of
development of the theory was to show human development, in this third and final phase
how individual characteristics, in conjunction it is necessary to describe what he meant by
with aspects of the context, both spatial the bioecology of human development. Bron-
and temporal, influence what Bronfenbrenner fenbrenner defined the bioecological model as
now called proximal processes—the ‘‘engines ‘‘an evolving theoretical system for the scien-
of development’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, tific study of human development over time’’
2000, p. 118). In this final version of (2001, pp. 6963–6964; Bronfenbrenner & Mor-
his theory, named both the bioecological ris, 2006, p. 793). This system presupposes that
theory and the bioecological model of human the four elements of which it is formed (process,
development, Bronfenbrenner gave pride of person, context, time) simultaneously influence
place to proximal processes (1994, 1995b, human beings’ developmental outcomes; their
1999, 2000, 2001; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, effects are not merely additive (1999).
1993, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,
2006) and included the Process-Person-Context- Proximal processes. Describing the change
Time (PPCT) model of how to conduct from an ecological to a bioecological model,
bioecological research (1995b, 1999, 2000, Bronfenbrenner emphasized the role played by
2001; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). the person in his or her own development252 Journal of Family Theory & Review
by means of a mechanism termed proximal development of knowledge, skill, or ability to
processes. Proximal processes are the center conduct and direct one’s own behavior across
of bioecological theory and are viewed as the situations and developmental domains’’ (p. 118).
driving forces of human development (1999, They defined dysfunction as ‘‘the recurrent man-
2000, 2001; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; ifestation of difficulties in maintaining control
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). Two and integration of behavior across situations and
propositions, provided in each of his publications different domains of development’’ (p. 118).
during this phase, lay out the properties of Bronfenbrenner and Evans then went on to
proximal processes and the manner in which ask the crucial question, although they left the
they operate: answer unstated: ‘‘If proximal processes are
indeed the ‘engines of development,’ what are
Proposition 1 states that, especially in its early the differences between those that produce dys-
phases, and to a great extent throughout the life function vs. competence?’’ (p. 118).
course, human development takes place through An important function of proximal processes
processes of progressively more complex recipro- is their potential to transform genotypic char-
cal interaction between an active evolving biopsy-
chological human organism and the persons,
acteristics into phenotypes, actualizing genetic
objects, and symbols in its immediate environ- potential and thus improving ‘‘effective devel-
ment. To be effective, the interaction must occur opmental functioning’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of 1994). To explain this, the coauthors discussed
time. Such enduring forms of interaction in the three hypotheses, namely: (a) ‘‘heritability (h2 )
immediate environment are referred to henceforth will be higher when proximal processes are
as proximal processes. . . . Proposition 2 [states strong and lower when such processes are weak’’
that] the form, power, content, and direction of (p. 572); (b) ‘‘proximal processes actualize
the proximal processes that affect development genetic potentials both for enhancing functional
vary systematically as a joint function of the competence and for reducing degrees of dys-
characteristics of the developing person and the
environment (both immediate and more remote)
function’’ (p. 578); and (c) ‘‘the power of
in which the processes are taking place and the proximal processes to actualize genetic poten-
nature of the developmental outcomes under con- tials for developmental competence . . . will
sideration. (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, p. 317) be greater in advantaged and stable environ-
ments than in those that are disadvantaged and
Almost identical wording, with the addition disorganized’’ (p. 578).
of phrasing that included time from 1995 On the basis of many nontheoretical papers
onward, can be found in any of his most that he wrote, discussing others’ research into
recent papers (1994, p. 1644; 1995b, pp. the conditions under which children and fam-
620–621; 1999, p. 5; 2000, p. 130; 2001, ilies would thrive, Bronfenbrenner concluded
pp. 6964–6965; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, that proximal processes would have greater
p. 572; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000, pp. chance of promoting outcomes of developmen-
117–118; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, tal competence in more stable and advantageous
p. 996; 2006, pp. 797–798). environments. By contrast, in settings that are
The analyses conducted by Bronfenbrenner unstable and disadvantageous, proximal pro-
regarding proximal process indicated that he cesses would function by avoiding or slowing
considered them as almost always acting in outcomes of developmental dysfunction (1994,
a positive way on developmental outcomes, 2000, 2001; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994;
whether by promoting outcomes of competence Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). These
or by diminishing the possibility of dysfunc- hypotheses are clearly related to the conviction
tional outcomes (1994; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, that public policy, if planned on the basis of bioe-
1993, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, cological theory, could improve the ecological
2006). The first, and probably unique, consider- environments in which human beings live and
ation of the possibility that proximal processes thus lead to developmental outcomes of com-
could promote dysfunctional outcomes can be petence (1999; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
found in his paper coauthored with Evans (2000). He also argued that the developmental power
Drawing on Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998), of proximal processes would also be increased
Bronfenbrenner and Evans defined competence if they occurred among people who developed
as the ‘‘demonstrated acquisition and further a strong emotional relationship (2000, 2001;The Evolution of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 253
Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner Demand characteristics are those easily noted
& Morris, 1998, 2006). qualities of the developing person that can invite
Proximal processes involve not only relation- or discourage reactions from the social environ-
ships among people but also relations between ment, influencing the way in which proximal
people and the objects and symbols with which processes are established. Bronfenbrenner and
they come into contact; however, Bronfenbren- Morris (2006) provided examples of demand
ner paid little attention to relations with objects characteristics as an agitated or calm tempera-
and symbols, with the exception of a single page ment, attractive versus unattractive appearance,
in his chapters published with Morris (1998, and hyperactivity and passivity. They also men-
2006) and a paragraph in his 1999 chapter. tioned other characteristics that could be imme-
When engaging in solo activities, only with diately seen, such as age, gender, and skin color,
objects and/or symbols, a person’s ‘‘own dispo- all of which can affect the establishment of
sition and resources would play a far stronger proximal processes.
role in affecting the direction and power of the Finally, emphasizing the role of person
proximal process than in the case of interper- characteristics in his new bioecological model,
sonal interaction’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, Bronfenbrenner highlighted the fact that they
2006, p. 814), just as characteristics of the set- appear twice in this new conceptualization of
ting also become more relevant (Bronfenbrenner human development. They first appear as one of
& Morris, 1998, 2006). the components of the model and therefore as an
influence on development and, at the same time,
Person characteristics. Bronfenbrenner des- as a developmental outcome (1995a, 1995b,
cribed three types of person characteristics 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006).
as part of the second P of PPCT. The
characteristic of force (or ‘‘disposition’’; 1995b) Context. Context, about which so much was
is considered the most likely to influence a written in earlier phases of the theory, received
person’s developmental outcomes, whether in much less attention in this third and final
a generative or disruptive manner. Generative phase. Without further modifications to those
force characteristics are those that initiate that had been developed in the first two
or sustain proximal processes, whereas those phases, Bronfenbrenner (1994, 1999) restricted
that are disruptive can impede or interrupt himself to providing definitions of the four
them (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). ‘‘systems’’ of context. Bronfenbrenner and
Generative force characteristics ‘‘involve such Morris (1998, 2006) made clear that proximal
active orientations as curiosity, tendency to processes, whether involving solitary interaction
initiate and engage in activity alone or with with objects or symbols or interaction with one
others, responsiveness to initiatives by others, or more other social partners, occur within
and readiness to defer immediate gratification microsystems, but that the other systems of
to pursue long-term goals’’ (Bronfenbrenner & context are also influential. However, it is
Morris, 1998, p. 1009; 2006, p. 810). By contrast, particularly striking that the macrosystem, to
individuals with disruptive force characteristics which particular attention had been paid in
tend toward ‘‘impulsiveness, explosiveness, 1979, 1989, and 1993, is only briefly discussed
distractibility, inability to defer gratification, once (1994) in this entire phase. Bronfenbrenner
or, in a more extreme form, [readily] resort and Morris (1998, 2006) discussed Steinberg,
to aggression and violence’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Darling, and Fletcher’s (1995) research on
Morris, 1998, p. 1009; 2006, p. 810). adolescents from groups that are distinguished
Resource characteristics are those that influ- by ethnicity (which had been considered
ence a person’s ability to engage effectively in ‘‘subcultural’’ aspects of the macrosystem in
proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, the previous phase) as though it were related to
1998, 2006). Those that activate development the mesosystem and exosystem rather than to
include ‘‘ability, knowledge, skill, and experi- the macrosystem.
ence,’’ whereas resources that limit or disrupt
proximal processes ‘‘include genetic defects, Time. Finally, time is included in the model,
low birthweight, physical handicaps, severe and building on what Bronfenbrenner had earlier
persistent illness, or damage to brain function’’ termed the chronosystem (1988). In the bioe-
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 812). cological model, however, the concept of time254 Journal of Family Theory & Review
was broadened to include what happens over DISCUSSION
the course of both ontogenetic and histori- Bronfenbrenner’s theory-related publications
cal time. Inspired by Elder’s (1974) research, from 1973 to 2006 reveal clearly the extent
Bronfenbrenner stated, ‘‘The individual’s own to which the theory evolved. The first phase
developmental life course is seen as embedded in was characterized by a description of ecological
and powerfully shaped by conditions and events contexts, making clear the social nature of the
occurring during the historical period through process of human development. In this phase
which the person lives’’ (1995b, p. 641; 1999, one can find the fullest description of the
p. 20). different levels of the ecological environment
In his publications of 1998 and 2006, in which human beings develop. Human beings
in collaboration with Morris, Bronfenbrenner are described as not only the product but also
called further attention to the importance of the producer of their own development, but little
time, in different senses. They described it explicit attention was paid to the role of the
as having three levels: microtime, mesotime, individual in this phase.
and macrotime. Microtime refers to ‘‘continuity The importance of the second phase is in
versus discontinuity in ongoing episodes of Bronfenbrenner’s discussion of the evolution
proximal process,’’ mesotime has to do with of various research paradigms, with particular
how often these episodes occur over days attention paid to the distinction between
and weeks, and macrotime ‘‘focuses on the paradigms that either do or do not permit
changing expectations and events in the larger researchers an assessment of processes that
society, both within and across generations’’ might explain how development occurs. In
(2006, p. 796). Integrating each of these aspects this phase, Bronfenbrenner also made the first
into the bioecological model, Bronfenbrenner major modifications to the theory, in particularly
and Morris defined human development as paying more explicit attention to the role played
‘‘the phenomenon of continuity and change in by the person in development, to processes
the biopsychological characteristics of human of development, to culture and subculture as
beings, both as individuals and as groups important parts of the macrosystem, and to the
. . . over the life course, across successive chronosystem.
generations, and through historical time, both The third phase constitutes the mature form
past and future’’ (2006, p. 793). of the theory, in which proximal processes are
As Bronfenbrenner had already shown in his considered the primary driving force of devel-
ecological theory, in the bioecological model opment and the role of person characteristics is
the notion of stability and change occurs given far more weight as one of the two main
within a phenomenological perspective. Such factors (the other being the environment) that
a perspective considers not only the objective influence the functioning of proximal processes.
properties of the setting in which the person is Although Bronfenbrenner himself marked the
acting and interacting but also the subjective beginning of the final version of the theory from
properties, as experienced by the person (2001; 1998 (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000), in fact,
Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner the change was first signaled in a paper coau-
& Morris, 1998, 2006). thored with Ceci (1993), in which the authors
Operationally, the bioecological model pro- for the first time referred to the theory as a bioe-
poses methods for evaluating developmental cological theory, placed proximal processes as
outcomes that emerge as a result of the active the driving force for development, and included
participation of the four components of the PPCT the two central propositions describing proximal
model: process, person, context, and time. Bron- processes and how they are influenced. Although
fenbrenner also was convinced that the ideal Bronfenbrenner and Morris’s (1998) chapter
method of study using his model was one of included many more examples of research
the ‘‘discovery’’ type, namely a method that that supported the model, the only substantive
includes all of the elements of the model, reveal- change was to refer to the model with which
ing their interdependence, given the available the theory could be tested as a PPCT model
data, and that allows the elaboration of succes- (in Bronfenbrenner’s 1994 paper he still referred
sive studies that are progressively more complex to it as a PPC model and included time as the
(1995a, 2000, 2001; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, chronosystem, the temporal equivalent of the
1998, 2006). spatial context).You can also read
