Urie Bronfenbrenner is one of the most well know psychologists in the field of developmental psychology (Ahuja, n.d.). Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems theory is arguably his most acknowledged work. This review will identify each of the five systems in turn (the microsystem, the mesosytem, the exosystem, the macrosystem and the chronosystem) which make up the ecological theory and explore the evidence from contemporary literature from the last 20 years that support the ecological systems model, with regards to the adolescent stage of development. This review will particularly look at how the five systems can influence an adolescent’s behavior and how researchers are providing further evidence to support Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory by further contributing to the understanding of human development by applying Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) model to contemporary human development. Finally this review will explore the indirect and direct acknowledgement of the ecological systems model from a psychological domain that rarely supports many developmental theories.
Microsystem
According to Bronfenbrenner (1977), a microsystem is a complex of relations between the developing person and environment in an immediate setting containing that person (e.g. the developing persons home, school etc). The microsystem of an adolescent consists of a social network of interpersonal relationships involving direct face-to-face interactions with people with whom the developing person has a lasting relationship, who are influential in their life, and who in turn, are influenced by the adolescent (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). The primary microsystem for an adolescent is often their parents or guardians followed by their friends.
The perceived importance of a developing individual’s microsystems often changes during the adolescent stage of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). A common finding when researching the shift in the importance of certain microsystems is that parents and guardians often become less influential than they have been on the developing adult as friends become more influential (De Goede, Branje, Delsing & Meeus, 2009). A possible explanation for this is put forward by Nelson, Leibenluft, McClure and Pine (2005) who in his research found a change in the social networking process in the brain of individuals during the adolescent stage of development. Nelson, Leibenluft, McClure and Pine (2005) concluded that social changes that happen during the adolescent stage of development maybe linked with neurological changes in the brain at this stage of development. This suggests that during this stage in development, an adolescent’s neurological development has an effect on their behavior as well as the adolescent’s ecological surroundings also having an effect.
The effect of the shift in importance towards friends/peers suggested by Bronfenbrenner (1977) can, according to contemporary research, determine whether an adolescent will take part in detrimental behavior or not (Marcoux & Shope, 1997). Peer groups can provide powerful social rewards such as status and acceptance (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008) but can sometimes lead to detrimental behavior such as taking sexual risks (Henrich, Brookmeyer, Shrier & Shahar, 2006). However this tends to happen when the adolescent has an “unhealthy” set of Microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). In order to have a “healthy” balanced microsystem adolescents should have a good relationship with fellow peers as well as their parents (Marcoux & Shope, 1997).
The research discussed with regards to the microsystem suggest that there is evidence to support Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory in the form of contemporary scholar’s acknowledgement of the theory and their further application of the theory to very specific areas of a person’s development (i.e. The adolescent stage of development). The research mentioned by Nelson, Leibenluft, McClure and Pine, (2005) also suggests that researchers are expanding on Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems model with further research and different perspectives on development
Mesosystem
The status of an adolescent’s microsystem is often affected by their mesosystem. A mesosystem comprises of the interrelations among major settings containing the developing person at a particular point in his or her life. A mesosystem according to Bronfenbrenner (1977) is a system of microsystems.
This concept of a mesosystem has been accepted by contemporary scholars who have examined Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory and have subsequently further developed it. De Goede, Branje, Delsing & Meeus (2009), through their understanding of the theory, proposed that a mesosystem and a microsystem would ideally work in a congruent way to achieve a suggested “healthy” and “balanced” microsystems for the developing adolescent. An example and further application is observed when an adolescent’s peers and the adolescent’s parents share a common view such as that drinking may contribute to bad health (Foxcroft & Lowe, 1995). A congruent system of values exerts a more powerful and consistent influence and so on the subject of drinking, if both parents and peers agree drinking can pose health risks, the adolescent is unlikely to drink to the point where it could cause them bad health (Vink, Willemsen & Boomsma, 2003).
By the same token, if the microsystems and the mesosystems are congruent on an issue it does not mean that the adolescent will engage in positive behavior. It could be that the systems are congruent in a negative way. An example of this could be that both peers and parents see no reason why excessive drinking is wrong and therefore the adolescent is unlikely to see any problem, and will also engage in excessive drinking (Vink, Willemsen & Boomsma, 2003).
When the mesosystem and the microsystems are divergent, and there are very few or no linkages between the micro systems a negative effect can occur on the adolescent’s development. As mentioned before adolescents often put more emphasis on the importance of their peer microsystem over their microsystem of their parents (De Goede et al., 2009) and this can either lead to non detrimental behavior or detrimental behavior (Hennrich Brookmeyer, Shrier & Shahar, 2006).
The contemporary research discussed with regards to the mesosystem provides supportive evidence for the ecological theory by, once again acknowledging Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory in their own research. The researchers mentioned above support Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory further as they report observations of developing adolescent behavior that has occurred due to the state of their micro- and mesosystem. The mentioned researcher’s findings support Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) hypothesized reactions of the adolescents to the state of their systems.
Exosystem
With the economic down turn of today’s contemporary world, Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) concept of an exosystem is becoming more visible in the contemporary life of an adolescent.
Bronfenbrenner (1977) describes an exosystem is an extension of the mesosystem that embraces other specific social structures, both formal and informal, that do not themselves contain the developing person but impinge upon or encompass the immediate setting in which that person is found. The exosystem is further defined by Bronfenbrenner (1977) as a larger community in which the adolescent lives, although he or she does not directly participate in the exosystem decision making, these decisions do have a direct and sometimes indirect influence on the adolescent.
Supporting articles for Bronfenbrenner’s theory are regularly being published as researchers are observing the prolific effect of the government’s attempt to lower the deficit on members of the public, particularly adolescents. This change in an adolescent’s exosystem is also affecting their mesosystem and their Microsystems. The family stress model developed by Conger (1994). The model proposes that economic pressure in the family can have serious detrimental consequences for parent psychological functioning and family relationships which, in turn, may jeopardise the successful development of children and adolescents (Conger et al., 2002). These economic pressures can mean that adequate supplies of food and clothing are not possible to purchase and bills cannot be paid because go a lack of money.
The model also proposes that when parents are under increasing economic pressure, they are at high risk of emotional distress such as, depression and anxiety (Conger, 1994, Conger et al., 2002) and behavioral problems such as substance abuse (Conger, 1994). According to the model, when parents are distracted by their problems they are expected to be less involved in their children’s daily activities and can be more harsh, irritable and inconsistent in their disciplinary practices. This in turn has a generally negative effect on their children’s development (Conger, 2002).
This model compliments Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory as the effect of the economic pressure to the parents is mainly caused by an exosystem (the government) making decisions that will eventually resolve the economic problem. This can effect the parents’ and child/adolescent’s relationship (microsystem). Because the parents may pay little attention to their child/ adolescent’s other Microsystems (I.e. friends). As a result of this, mesosystems will either be very few and weak between the parents and the adolescent’s other Microsystems or not exist at all. This contemporary evidence supports Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems theory as the research discussed illustrates that the ecological systems are “interlinked” with each system being as influential to the adolescents development as the other. According to Bronfenbrenner (1977) this is a fundamental part of the ecological systems model which contemporary research confirms.
Macrosystem
The penultimate system described by Bronfenbrenner (1977) is known as the macrosystem. The macrosystem is described as the overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems characteristics of a given culture or subculture, with particular reference to the belief systems, bodies of knowledge, material resources, customs, lifestyles, opportunity structures, hazards and life course options that are embedded in each of these broader systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The macrosystem maybe be thought of as a societal blue print for a particular culture or subculture (Bronfenbrenner, 1977).
Macrosystem values, find expression in what is considered fashionable and attractive and appropriate but also what is not. An example of this can be seen within the Muslim culture, where there is a general acceptance that women should be covered up by wearing a burka. However, in today’s western society women are not encouraged to cover their whole bodies as it would often be an impractical way of dressing for the way of life in a western culture (Akou, 2007).
The macrosystem often influences what is considered attractive within a culture. Contemporary research has looked at this difference in the form of the media’s portrayal of beauty. Advertising in the media offers a unique opportunity to study how the beauty ideal is constructed across cultures (Frith, Shaw & Cheng, 2006). Frith, Shaw and cheng (2006) analysed the content of advertisements from women fashion and beauty magazines in countries such as Singapore, Taiwan, and the U.S.A to compare how beauty is encoded. It was found that the portrayals from the U.S.A and the two East Asian societies, that Asian adverts contained a large proportion of cosmetics and facial beauty. The U.S.A adverts however concentrated more on clothing. Frith, Shaw and Cheng (2006) concluded that a western society, beauty is constructed more in terms of “the body” whereas East Asian cultures emphasize beauty to be more related to “facial beauty”.
Many researchers consider the models and celebrities that are used for the body image driven adverts discussed, do not reflect what a “normal” body looks like and portrays a false image that being attractive involves being extremely thin (Hargreaves & Tiggemann, 2004). It is therefore no wonder that the high rates of eating disorders are found mainly in western countries with the U.S.A having the highest rates of eating disorders (Eating Disorders foundation of Victoria inc, 2010).
The literature discussed with regards to the macrosystem supports the notion that Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems theory is not culture bound. Many great theories and models have been formed by highly regarded scholars, however many of these theories’ greatest critisms has been that they have been unable to be applied to other cultures. This is due to many theories in psychology being culture specific. Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory, according to the research discussed, can be universally applied which put forwards a extremely bold though well supported statement that basic human development is dependant on a developing persons surroundings (their systems) regardless of which culture they are born into.
Chronosystem
The final system described by Bronfenbrenner (1977) is the chronsystem. The chronosystem encompasses change or consistency over time, not only in the characteristics of the person but also of the environment and the period in time, which that person lives (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Contemporary evidence for the chronosystem can be found embedded in the contemporary area of social psychology known as social constructionism. Social constructionists believe simmerly to Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) developmental theory that the way in which a person understands the world is dependant on where and when in the world they live (Burr, 1995). An example of this with regards to a developing adolescent could be seen in history when the idea of when adulthood begins has changed tremendously over the centuries. It is only recently in terms of human history that children and young adolescents are no longer thought of as “small adults” and as a result the expectation of parents in their children/ adolescents upbringing has changed (Burr, 1995). In terms of Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory this change in the perception of children/adolescents and their needs means that there has been an acceptance over time of the importance of a microsystem to a developing person. According to social constructionists, this means that the understanding of an adolescent should act and behave at different stages in their life or indeed anyone’s understanding of how they should behave is not only culturally specific as described in the macrosystem but also specific to the period in time in which the individual is living as according to the chronosystem.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory of the chronosystem and the social constructionist approach strongly support each other. Because Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems are so interlinked, the social constructionist approach also supports other systems within the ecological systems model as briefly discussed above.
To Conclude
From the evidence discussed throughout this review it would appear that Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems theory is well supported by contemporary evidence with regards to the adolescent stage of development. Researchers in the area of adolescent development regularly acknowledge Bronfenbrenner’s theory (1977) in their papers (De Goede et al, 2009) and further apply the theory to the development of adolescents in contemporary society.
The systems that make up the ecological model are so intrinsic as displayed in the literature discussed. Research into one system (for example the effect of a change in an exosystem) will often shed light on the effect of the other systems as well as one system cannot exist without the other as demonstrated in the literature discussed.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory not only is supported by other developmental models and research papers but is also supported by elements of the social psychology domain. Not only is their strong evidence to suggest the ecological systems theory can be applied cross culturally, but also can be applied to observations of human development in history and in the present day as discussed. It is therefore likely that Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory will continue to be acknowledged and developed by contemporary scholars who continue to explore areas of human development.
