Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory explains that an individual’s development is shaped by interconnected environmental systems, from immediate surroundings like family to broader societal structures like culture.

These systems include the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem, each influencing growth and behavior.

New developments with this theory:

Bronfenbrenner later expanded his theory into the bioecological model, highlighting that proximal processes—the ongoing interactions between a person and their environment—are the true engines of development. He also emphasized the importance of time, recognizing how life transitions and historical events shape growth. More recently, researchers have proposed adding virtual microsystems to reflect the impact of online environments like social media on modern development.

The Five Ecological Systems

Bronfenbrenner (1977) suggested that the child’s environment is a nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the next. He organized them in order of how much of an impact they have on a child.

He named these structures the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and the chronosystem.

Because the five systems are interrelated, the influence of one system on a child’s development depends on its relationship with the others.

1. The Microsystem

The microsystem is the first level of Bronfenbrenner’s theory and is the things that have direct contact with the child in their immediate environment.

It includes the child’s most immediate relationships and environments. For example, a child’s parents, siblings, classmates, teachers, and neighbors would be part of their microsystem.

Relationships in a microsystem are bi-directional, meaning other people can influence the child in their environment and change other people’s beliefs and actions.

The interactions the child has with these people and environments directly impact development.

The child is not just a passive recipient but an active contributor in these bidirectional interactions.

Example: Supportive parents who read to their child and provide educational activities may positively influence cognitive and language skills. Or, children with friends who bully them at school might develop self-esteem issues. 

2. The Mesosystem

The mesosystem is where a person’s individual microsystems do not function independently but are interconnected and assert influence upon one another.

The mesosystem involves interactions between different microsystems in the child’s life. These interactions can have significant impacts on the child’s development.

Example: A child whose parents are actively involved in their school life, such as attending parent-teacher conferences and volunteering for school events, may perform better academically.

3. The Exosystem

The exosystem is a component of the ecological systems theory developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner in the 1970s.

It incorporates other formal and informal social structures such as local governments, friends of the family, and mass media.

While not directly interacting with the child, the exosystem still influences the microsystems. 

Example: A parent’s workplace policies can significantly affect a child’s development.

If a company offers flexible working hours or work-from-home options, parents might have more time to spend with their children, positively impacting the child’s emotional development and family relationships.

4. The Macrosystem

The macrosystem focuses on how cultural elements affect a child’s development, consisting of cultural ideologies, attitudes, and social conditions that children are immersed in.

Beliefs about gender roles, individualism, family structures, and social issues establish norms and values that permeate a child’s microsystems. 

Example: In a society that highly values individual achievement, children might be encouraged to be more competitive and self-reliant.

This could influence parenting styles in the microsystem, with parents focusing more on personal accomplishments and independence.

Conversely, in a culture that emphasizes collective harmony, children might be raised to prioritize group needs over individual desires.

5. The Chronosystem

The fifth and final level of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is known as the chronosystem.

The chronosystem relates to environmental changes over a child’s lifetime. These changes may be predictable, such as starting school, or unpredictable, such as experiencing parental divorce.

Example: The introduction of widespread internet access and social media represents a significant chronosystem change for many children.

This technological shift has altered how children interact with peers, access information, and spend their leisure time, potentially affecting their social skills, cognitive development, and even sleep patterns.

The Bioecological Model

It is important to note that Bronfenbrenner (1994) later revised his theory and instead named it the ‘Bioecological model’.

Initially conceptualized as an ecological model focused primarily on contextual influences, it matured into a more sophisticated bioecological model emphasizing the critical role of proximal processes in development.

These processes are defined as “enduring forms of interaction in the immediate environment” and are considered the primary engines of development.

Central to the mature theory is the Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model. This model emphasizes the interplay between four key elements:

1. Process: The core proximal processes driving development
2. Person: Individual characteristics that influence these processes
3. Context: The environmental systems in which development occurs
4. Time: The temporal aspect of development, including both individual life course and historical time

His focus shifted from environmental influences to developmental processes that individuals experience over time.

‘…development takes place through the process of progressively more complex reciprocal interactions between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment.’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1995).

Bronfenbrenner also suggested that to understand the effect of these proximal processes on development, we have to focus on the person, context, and developmental outcome, as these processes vary and affect people differently.

While his original ecological systems theory emphasized the role of environmental systems, his later bioecological model focused more closely on micro-level interactions.

The bioecological shift highlighted reciprocal processes between the actively evolving individual and their immediate settings.

This represented an evolution in Bronfenbrenner’s thinking toward a more dynamic developmental process view.

However, the bioecological model still acknowledged the broader environmental systems from his original theory as an important contextual influence on proximal processes.

The bioecological focus on evolving person-environment interactions built upon the foundation of his ecological systems theory while bringing developmental processes to the forefront.

Classroom Application

The Ecological Systems Theory has been used to link psychological and educational theory to early educational curriculums and practice.

The developing child is at the center of the theory, and all that occurs within and between the five ecological systems is done to benefit the child in the classroom.

• According to the theory, teachers and parents should maintain good communication with each other and work together to benefit the child and strengthen the development of the ecological systems in educational practice.
• Teachers should also understand the situations their students’ families may be experiencing, including social and economic factors that are part of the various systems.
• According to the theory, if parents and teachers have a good relationship, this should positively shape the child’s development.
• Likewise, the child must be active in their learning, both academically and socially. They must collaborate with their peers and participate in meaningful learning experiences to enable positive development.

There are lots of studies that have investigated the effects of the school environment on students. Below are some examples:

Lippard et al. (2017) conducted a study to test Bronfenbrenner’s theory. They investigated the teacher-child relationships through teacher reports and classroom observations.

They found that these relationships were significantly related to children’s academic achievement and classroom behavior, suggesting that these relationships are important for children’s development and supports the Ecological Systems Theory.

Wilson et al. (2002) found that creating a positive school environment through a school ethos valuing diversity has a positive effect on students’ relationships within the school. Incorporating this kind of school ethos influences those within the developing child’s ecological systems.

Langford et al. (2014) found that whole-school approaches to the health curriculum can positively improve educational achievement and student well-being.

Thus, the development of the students is being affected by the microsystems.

Critical Evaluation

Strengths

Below are some of the strengths of this theory:

• Bronfenbrenner’s model quickly became very appealing and accepted as a useful framework for psychologists, sociologists, and teachers studying child development.
• The theory is thought to provide a holistic approach that includes all the systems children and their families are involved in, reflecting the dynamic nature of actual family relationships.
• Paat (2013) found that this theory is useful when it comes to understanding the development of immigrant children.
• An understanding of children’s ecology can aid in strengthening social work delivery for certain children.

Limitations

Below are some of the limitations of this theory:

• There is limited research examining the mesosystems, mainly the interactions between neighborhoods and the family of the child. Therefore, the extent to which these systems can shape child development is unclear.
• It is difficult to empirically test the theory. The studies investigating the ecological systems may establish an effect, but they cannot establish whether the systems directly cause such effects.
• This theory can lead to assumptions that those who do not have strong and positive ecological systems lack in development. Many people can still develop into well-rounded individuals without positive influences from their ecological systems.

Evolution and Relevance of Bronfenbrenner’s Theory in the 21st Century

Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development has undergone significant evolution since its inception in the 1970s, raising questions about its current relevance and application.

Despite these advancements, the theory’s relevance in the 21st century has been a subject of debate.

In today’s world, rapid technological advances and social changes have raised important questions about the theory’s applicability.

Critics point out that many researchers still misapply Bronfenbrenner’s ideas, focusing narrowly on environmental contexts while overlooking the crucial roles of individual characteristics, interactions, and time.

Despite these challenges, the theory remains highly relevant. Its focus on the dynamic interplay between personal, environmental, and temporal factors offers a powerful framework for understanding development across diverse modern settings.

To stay useful in the 21st century, Bronfenbrenner’s model must be applied thoughtfully:

• Researchers need to center proximal processes in their designs.

• The growing influence of technology and digital environments must be recognized.

• Studies should account for developmental changes over time, not just static snapshots.

Neo-Ecological Theory

Building on Bronfenbrenner’s work, Navarro and Tudge (2022) proposed a neo-ecological theory to address technological shifts. Their updates include:

• Adding virtual microsystems to represent online environments, which differ from physical ones in their availability, publicness, and asynchronicity.

• Recognizing the expanded role of the macrosystem, as technology allows young people to actively shape cultural values and social norms.

• Including digital interactions as new forms of proximal processes, emphasizing that meaningful development now often occurs through online activities and relationships.

By adapting Bronfenbrenner’s principles to modern realities, researchers and educators can continue to use the ecological approach to better understand human growth in an increasingly digital and interconnected world.

How to reference this article:

McLeod, S. (2020). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html

Frequently Asked Questions

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child development, 45 (1), 1-5.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American psychologist, 32 (7), 513.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings . Social development, 9 (1), 115-125.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualised: A bio-ecological model. Psychological Review, 10 (4), 568–586.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Hayes, N., O’Toole, L., & Halpenny, A. M. (2017). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for practitioners and students in early years education. Taylor & Francis.

Kelly, M., & Coughlan, B. (2019). A theory of youth mental health recovery from a parental perspective. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 24 (2), 161-169.

Langford, R., Bonell, C. P., Jones, H. E., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S. M., Waters, E., Komro, A. A., Gibbs, L. F., Magnus, D. & Campbell, R. (2014). The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well‐being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (4).

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (2), 309.

Lippard, C. N., La Paro, K. M., Rouse, H. L., & Crosby, D. A. (2018, February). A closer look at teacher–child relationships and classroom emotional context in preschool. In Child & Youth Care Forum 47(1), 1-21.

Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology, 1-17.

Paat, Y. F. (2013). Working with immigrant children and their families: An application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23 (8), 954-966.

Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of family theory & review, 5(4), 243-258.

Rhodes, S. (2013). Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory [PDF]. Retrieved from http://uoit.blackboard.com

Tudge, J. R., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of family theory & review, 1(4), 198-210.

Wilson, P., Atkinson, M., Hornby, G., Thompson, M., Cooper, M., Hooper, C. M., & Southall, A. (2002). Young minds in our schools-a guide for teachers and others working in schools. Year: YoungMinds (Jan 2004).

Further Information

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child Development, 45.