Uses and Misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory of Human Development

JONATHAN R. H. TUDGE, IRINA MOKROVA, BRIDGET E. HATFIELD, AND RACHANA B. KARNIKThe University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Uses and Misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s

Bioecological Theory of Human Development

This paper evaluates the application of Bron-fenbrenner’s bioecological theory as it is repre-sented in empirical work on families and theirrelationships. We describe the ‘‘mature’’ formof bioecological theory of the mid-1990s andbeyond, with its focus on proximal processes atthe center of the Process-Person-Context-Timemodel. We then examine 25 papers publishedsince 2001, all explicitly described as beingbased on Bronfenbrenner’s theory, and showthat all but 4 rely on outmoded versions of thetheory, resulting in conceptual confusion andinadequate testing of the theory.

A number of scholars (see, e.g., Goldhaber,2000; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Richters, 1997;Tudge, 2008; Winegar, 1997) have arguedconvincingly that there should be a tightconnection between one’s theory, the methodsthat one uses, and one’s analytic strategy. Themeaning of theory in any scientific field is toprovide a framework within which to explainconnections among the phenomena under studyand to provide insights leading to the discoveryof new connections. Although we recognizethat any theory is a representation of reality,among its purposes are those of providing

Department of Human Development and Family Studies,PO Box 26170, The University of North Carolina atGreensboro, Greensboro NC 27402-6170.([email protected])

Key Words: bioecological theory, Bronfenbrenner, ecolog-ical theory, PPCT, Process–Person–Context–Time model,proximal processes.

researchers with a common scientific languageand guiding empirical studies in such a wayas to allow findings from different studiesto be evaluated with a common rubric. Thegoal of much empirical work, on the otherhand, besides acquiring new information, isto test the accuracy and goodness of fit oftheories that aim to describe the phenomenaunder study. Some researchers argue that theirinitial work is deliberately atheoretical (as inthe application of grounded theory methods)or purely inductive (descriptive studies). Manyempirical studies, however, are guided by sometheoretical framework from which the researcheroperates, consciously or not. In the latter case,for the clarity and integrity of scientific thoughtas well as for compatibility of findings, itis important to make explicit the theoreticalframework on which the research is based.

Another benefit of making a theory explicitwhile conducting or reporting a study is inenhancing the understanding of a particulartheory, either by providing supporting ornonsupporting evidence. An empirical study thatdoes not properly represent a theory on which itis based, however, creates a twofold disservice.First, it misleads students and fellow researchersabout the contents and propositions of the theory,thus providing a flawed heuristic tool. Second,it prevents a fair test of the theory, thus notallowing useful adjustments to be made.

The main goal of this paper is to present theessence of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s bioecologicaltheory in its ‘‘mature’’ form and examine theways contemporary family and developmental

198 Journal of Family Theory & Review 1 (December 2009): 198–210

Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 199

scholars use and misuse it in empirical studies.After a brief overview of the origins and devel-opments in bioecological theory, we present thekey elements and propositions of the theory ingreater detail. Then, we use a sample of 25empirical studies, said to be explicitly based onBronfenbrenner’s theory, to examine the waysin which the theory was applied and to discussthe appropriateness of application. Finally, weconsider a number of possible explanations forthe misapplications that we identify.

Our goal in this paper is thus to evaluatethe ways in which Bronfenbrenner’s theoryhas been used in recently published research.Our intention is to assess the extent to whichthe theory was accurately represented and theresearch methods or analyses were linked to thetheory. Initially, therefore, we will describe thetheory as it developed into its mature form.

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF BRONFENBRENNER’STHEORY

Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human developmentis a theory that was, until Bronfenbrenner diedin 2005, in a continual state of development.This is, of course, true of all theories; onecannot give an adequate account of Piaget’stheory by describing only his earliest books.This point does not simply apply to theories thatare developed over the course of a half century;Vygotsky, for example, was actively engaged inpsychology for only a little more than a decade,but three distinct phases can be identified, andscholars need to distinguish among them whendescribing his theory (Tudge & Scrimsher,2003). Bronfenbrenner, however, was a veryself-reflective theorist and fairly frequentlynoted the changing nature of his theory. Forexample, he wrote: ‘‘I have been pursuing ahidden agenda: that of re-assessing, revising,and extending—as well as regretting and evenrenouncing—some of the conceptions set forthin my 1979 monograph’’ (Bronfenbrenner,1989, p. 187). He was most explicit about thisreassessment in his 1999 chapter, where he statedthat ‘‘it is useful to distinguish two periods: thefirst ending with the publication of the Ecologyof Human Development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979),and the second characterized by a seriesof papers that call the original model intoquestion’’ (p. 4). His earlier theorizing gavepride of place to aspects of the context (thefamous concepts of microsystem, mesosystem,

exosystem, and macrosystem), whereas he laterengaged in self-criticism for discounting therole the person plays in his or her owndevelopment and for focusing too much oncontext (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). Interestingconcepts such as molar activities, ecologicalexperiments, ecological validity, and ecologicaltransitions, given an important role in his earliestwork (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979), virtuallydisappeared from his later writings.

Nonetheless, although Bronfenbrenner (1989,1999) argued that the 1977 and 1979 versionsof the theory had been altered, revised, andextended, his theory was always (and explicitly)ecological, stressing person-context interrelat-edness (Tudge, Gray & Hogan, 1997). In noneof his theory-related writings, even the earliest,did he focus exclusively on contextual factors.The single most important difference from hisearly writings is the later concern with processesof human development. In some of the chapterswritten in the 1980s (Bronfenbrenner, 1988;Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983), he referredto ‘‘process’’ as that which could explain theconnection between some aspect of the context(culture or social class, for example) or someaspect of the individual (e.g., gender) and anoutcome of interest. It was only in the 1990s,however, that proximal processes were definedas the key factor in development (Bronfenbren-ner, 1994, 1995, 1999; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). It wasalso from this time onward that he discussed theProcess-Person-Context-Time model (PPCT forshort) that has become the essence of his the-ory (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner &Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

Scholars may, of course, choose to use anearlier version of the theory as the foundationof their research; they may also choose tobase their study on only some of the majorconcepts of the developed version. In eithercase, however, this needs to be stated explicitly;neither the field nor the theory is well servedif the study’s authors write that they areusing ‘‘Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory’’ or‘‘Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model’’ butinstead use an earlier or partial version of thetheory. Conceptual incoherence is likely to resultwhen studies, written in the first decade ofthis century, are all described as being basedon Bronfenbrenner’s theory but some use ideastaken from the 1970s or 1980s and others fromthe 1990s. The full theory in its developed form

200 Journal of Family Theory & Review

deals with the interrelations among the followingfour PPCT concepts.

Process

Of these the first concept plays the crucial role(the ‘‘primary mechanisms’’) in development.Proximal processes feature in two central‘‘propositions’’ that appear in several ofBronfenbrenner’s later publications. The firststates:

[H]uman development takes place through pro-cesses of progressively more complex reciprocalinteraction between an active, evolving biopsycho-logical human organism and the persons, objects,and symbols in its immediate external environ-ment. To be effective, the interaction must occuron a fairly regular basis over extended periods oftime. Such enduring forms of interaction in theimmediate environment are referred to as proxi-mal processes. (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,p. 996, italics in the original)

The examples that he provided (‘‘playing witha young child; child-child activities; group orsolitary play, reading, learning new skills’’ andso on) are the types of things that regularly goon in the lives of developing individuals. Theyconstitute the engines of development because itis by engaging in these activities and interactionsthat individuals come to make sense of theirworld and understand their place in it, and bothplay their part in changing the prevailing orderwhile fitting into the existing one.

As Bronfenbrenner made increasingly explicit,perhaps responding to the fact that he contin-ued to be cited as a theorist of context, onthe basis of his 1979 book, proximal processesare fundamental to the theory. The nature ofproximal processes, however, varies accordingto aspects of the individual and of the con-text—both spatial and temporal (Bronfenbren-ner, 1995, 1999, 2001/2005; Bronfenbrenner &Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).As he explained in the second of the two centralpropositions:

The form, power, content, and direction ofthe proximal processes effecting developmentvary systematically as a joint function of thecharacteristics of the developing person; ofthe environment—both immediate and moreremote—in which the processes are taking place;the nature of the developmental outcomes under

consideration; and the social continuities andchanges occurring over time through the life courseand the historical period during which the personhas lived. (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 996,italics in the original)

Bronfenbrenner stated that these two propo-sitions ‘‘are theoretically interdependent andsubject to empirical test. An operational researchdesign that permits their simultaneous investiga-tion is referred to as a Process-Person-Context-Time model’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,p. 996). Thus, in order to implement a studythat is guided by bioecological theory, all fourelements of the model should be present. If aresearch design, for whatever reason, does notpermit adequate assessment of one or more of theelements, this fact should be clearly acknowl-edged in order to preserve the integrity of thetheory.

Person

Bronfenbrenner acknowledged the relevance ofbiological and genetic aspects of the person(Bronfenbrenner, 2001/2005; Bronfenbrenner &Ceci, 1994). He devoted more attention, how-ever, to the personal characteristics that individ-uals bring with them into any social situation(Bronfenbrenner, 1993, 1995; Bronfenbrenner& Morris, 1998). He divided these characteris-tics into three types, which he termed demand,resource, and force characteristics. Demandcharacteristics are those to which he had referredin earlier writings as ‘‘personal stimulus’’ char-acteristics, those that act as an immediate stimu-lus to another person, such as age, gender, skincolor, and physical appearance. These types ofcharacteristics may influence initial interactionsbecause of the expectations formed immedi-ately. Resource characteristics, by contrast, arenot immediately apparent, though sometimesthey are induced, with differing degrees ofaccuracy, from the demand characteristics thatare seen. These are characteristics that relatepartly to mental and emotional resources suchas past experiences, skills, and intelligence andalso to social and material resources (access togood food, housing, caring parents, educationalopportunities appropriate to the needs of the par-ticular society, and so on). Finally, force charac-teristics are those that have to do with differencesof temperament, motivation, persistence, and thelike. According to Bronfenbrenner, two children


may have equal resource characteristics, but theirdevelopmental trajectories will be quite differ-ent if one is motivated to succeed and persistsin tasks and the other is not motivated and doesnot persist.

Although Bronfenbrenner, even in his earliestwritings, was never a theorist simply dealingwith contextual influences on development, asmany authors imply, he, in his later writings,provided a clearer view of individuals’ rolesin changing their context. The change canbe relatively passive (a person changes theenvironment simply by being in it, to the extentthat others react to him or her differently onthe basis of demand characteristics such as age,gender, and skin color), to more active (the waysin which the person changes the environmentare linked to his or her resource characteristics,whether physical, mental, or emotional), to mostactive (the extent to which the person changesthe environment is linked, in part, to the desireand drive to do so, or force characteristics).

Context

The environment, or context, involves four inter-related systems. The first is any environment,such as home, school, or peer group, in whichthe developing person spends a good deal oftime engaging in activities and interactions (i.e.,the microsystem). As people spend time in morethan one microsystem, Bronfenbrenner wroteabout the interrelations among them (i.e., themesosystem). There are also important contextsin which the individuals whose developmentis being considered are not actually situatedbut which have important indirect influenceson their development (i.e., the exosystem). Anexample of an exosystem effect is the following:A mother has been particularly stressed at workand, as a result, behaves more irritably than usualwith her son when she gets home. The mother’swork is an exosystem for the child because hespends no time there, but it has an indirect influ-ence on him. Finally, Bronfenbrenner definedthe macrosystem as a context encompassing anygroup (‘‘culture, subculture, or other extendedsocial structure’’) whose members share value orbelief systems, ‘‘resources, hazards, lifestyles,opportunity structures, life course options andpatterns of social interchange’’ (1993, p. 25).The macrosystem envelops the remaining sys-tems, influencing (and being influenced by) allof them. A particular cultural group may share a

set of values, but for any particular value systemto have any influence on a developing person ithas to be experienced within one or more of themicrosystems in which that person is situated.

Time

The final element of the PPCT model is time.As befits any theory of human development,time plays a crucial role in the theory. In thesame way that both context and individual fac-tors are divided into subfactors, Bronfenbrennerand Morris (1998) wrote about time as consti-tuting micro-time (what is occurring during thecourse of some specific activity or interaction),meso-time (the extent to which activities andinteractions occur with some consistency in thedeveloping person’s environment), and macro-time (the chronosystem, to use the term thatBronfenbrenner had earlier used). The latter termrefers to the fact that developmental processesare likely to vary according to the specific histor-ical events that are occurring as the developingindividuals are at one age or another. This lattersense is captured best in research such as thatof Elder (1974, 1996), who was able to demon-strate significant variation in the developmentaltrajectories of people from two cohorts, bornin the same geographical area but just 10 yearsapart. Each cohort experienced the effects of theGreat Depression in the United States (and sub-sequent historical events) completely differentlybecause they experienced each of these eventsat a different point in the life course.

Time, as well as timing, is equally importantbecause all aspects of the PPCT model can bethought of in terms of relative constancy andchange. This is true whether one is thinkingabout developing individuals themselves, thetypes of activities and interactions in whichthey engage, or the various microsystems inwhich they are situated. Moreover, cultures alsoare continually undergoing change, although atsome periods of historical time the rates ofchange are much faster than at others.

Research based on the mature versionof Bronfenbrenner’s theory should thereforeinclude each of the elements of the PPCT modelif it is to qualify as a complete test of the model.Partial tests are, of course, possible, but shouldbe identified as such. It is impossible, however,to treat a study as being based on the mature ver-sion if its design does not involve a focus on thecritical element of Process (proximal processes)


or an assessment (observation or from interviewsor questionnaires) of the types of typical activ-ities and interactions believed to be relevant forthe study participants’ developmental outcomesof interest. To understand how Person charac-teristics influence those proximal processes, theminimum requirement would be to assess theways in which a demand characteristic, such asage, appearance, or gender, altered these activi-ties and interactions, although a richer designwould examine the ways in which relevantresource or force characteristics of the study par-ticipants influenced the ways in which they actedand interacted. Context, too, influences proximalprocesses, and the minimum requirement wouldbe to evaluate the differential influence of twomicrosystems (home and school, for example) ortwo macrosystems (middle- and working-classfamilies or adolescents from different culturalgroups) on the activities and interactions of inter-est. Finally, regarding Time, the study should belongitudinal (to evaluate the influence of proxi-mal processes, as they are mutually influenced byperson characteristics and context, on the devel-opmental outcomes of interest) and should takeinto account what is occurring, in the group beingstudied, at the current point of historical time.

The focus of this paper is thus to evaluatethe extent to which contemporary scholars areappropriately using Bronfenbrenner’s theory inits developed form in the design of their studies.Obviously, papers written prior to the late 1990scould not be expected to discuss the theory inits mature form, and we therefore restricted oursearch to those papers published from 2001 toMarch 2008 whose authors stated explicitly thattheir research was based on Bronfenbrenner’stheory. We excluded from consideration thosepapers in which authors specified that theywere using an earlier version of his theory orthat they were using a limited set of conceptsfrom the theory. These are perfectly acceptableapproaches, and these authors in no way implythat they are basing their research on the matureor complete version of the theory. Many otherauthors, however, stated explicitly that theirwork was based on Bronfenbrenner’s theorybut in fact only considered an earlier versionof the theory or treated the theory as thoughit only related to person-environment relations.These papers, we believe, are unhelpful to thefield, implying either that the theory has notdeveloped since the 1970s or 1980s or that it canbe reduced to something far more limited.

METHOD

To find studies for evaluation, we conducted anextensive search of PsycINFO, Education Index,EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Google, and GoogleScholar, using the following keyword search:Bronfenbrenner, PPCT, ecological theory, eco-logical systems theory, bioecological theory, andprocess–person–context–time. Search optionsprovided by some publishing houses (Sage, forexample) were also used to search within spe-cific journals. We do not claim to have locatedall articles published in English between 2001and March 2008 in which the researchers statedthat their study was based on Bronfenbrenner’stheory; our search was extensive but not exhaus-tive. Nonetheless, we were able to locate 25published studies that met our criteria.

RESULTS, OR USES AND MISUSES OF THETHEORY

Appropriate Uses of Bronfenbrenner’s Theory

Of these 25 studies, we found only 4 in which theauthors based their research on the mature formof Bronfenbrenner’s theory, that is, by using atleast three of the PPCT concepts, including prox-imal processes. Adamsons, O’Brien, and Pasley(2007), Campbell, Pungelo, and Miller-Johnson(2002), Riggins-Caspers, Cadoret, Knutson, andLangbehn (2003), and Tudge, Odero, Hogan,and Etz (2003) presented the theory in its matureform and tested theoretical assumptions throughappropriate research designs.

Adamsons and her colleagues (2007) exam-ined the differences in father involvement andquality of father-child interactions between bio-logical father and stepfathers and did so byexplicitly linking them to the four elements of thePPCT model. The secondary data analyses andcross-sectional nature of the study placed certainlimitations on the authors’ ability to implementfully the PPCT model, and we disagree with theauthors’ position that time was incorporated bysimply considering how long the stepfather hadbeen a part of the family. This variable does notrepresent the element of time as Bronfenbrennerconceived it. In the case of this study, it wouldhave been sufficient to acknowledge that timewas not measured because of the constraints ofthe research design and treat the lacuna as oneof the limitations of the study.

Fathers were considered as the developingpersons of interest because father involvement


and quality of father interactions with his childwere the outcomes being considered. Thus, theperson element was assessed through fathers’position in the family (biological or stepfather),age, race, parenting beliefs, and fathers’ levels ofmarital satisfaction. The authors also includedchild gender as a person characteristic of anindividual (child) with whom the developingperson of interest (the father) was interacting.Although Adamsons et al. (2007) state thatthe cross-sectional nature of the analyses didnot permit the examination of developmentas process and that their conceptualization ofprocess may differ from that of Bronfenbrenner,we find their assessment of quality of father-child engagement a reasonable representation ofproximal process.

Overall, we felt that Adamsons and hercolleagues (2007) adequately used the PPCTmodel in their research: The authors discussedall components of the theory, acknowledgedthe minor differences in conceptualizationor absence of certain elements, consideredtheir findings from Bronfenbrenner’s theoreticalperspective, and provided directions for futureresearch that would better and more fullyincorporate bioecological theory in examiningfathers’ involvement with their children.

We also felt that the paper by Riggins-Caspersand her colleagues (2003) outlined nicely the keypropositions of bioecological theory, drawing onBronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994). The study’spurpose was to assess biology-environmentinteractions through psychopathological con-tributions of biological and adoptive parentsand their adopted adolescents’ problem behav-ior as a result of harsh discipline. The authorsexplained clearly the links between variablesin their study and all of the elements of Bron-fenbrenner’s model. Proximal processes wereassessed through the children’s adoptive parents’harsh disciplinary techniques, which were foundto be influenced both by person characteristicsof the children (their predisposition to problembehavior, as assessed by their biological parents’degree of psychopathology) and by the environ-ment (low or moderate level of adoptive parents’psychopathology). Unfortunately, this measureof environment was inferred from person-relatedcharacteristics (drug and alcohol problems, legaldifficulties, depression, anxiety, and other psy-chological problem) and not assessed directlyas the theory requires. The outcome of interestwas the children’s current expression of problem

behavior, which was found to be influenced bothby childhood predispositions and by the level oftheir adoptive parents’ psychopathology.

In their discussion and conclusion, Riggins-Caspers et al. (2003) evaluated their resultsthrough the lens of bioecological theory,addressing the limitations of their study in a the-oretically appropriate way (particularly that theirapproach to time had relied on a retrospective,rather than prospective longitudinal, approach)and stating directions for future research fromthe theoretical as well as empirical standpoint.Beside the inferred nature of the context vari-able, this study serves as a good example of anempirical test of the PPCT model.

The final two papers that we thought notonly well described and used Bronfenbren-ner’s theory in its mature form but also wereable to include time in their use of the PPCTmodel were those of Campbell et al. (2002)and Tudge and his colleagues (2003). Campbelland her colleagues stated that they were basingtheir research ‘‘on Bronfenbrenner’s (Bronfen-brenner & Morris, 1998) ecological model inwhich interactions among personal character-istics, proximal processes, contexts, and timecombine to affect developmental outcomes’’(p. 278). The measures of proximal processesthat the authors used included early educationalinterventions and the quality of family function-ing, as assessed by the HOME scale, when thechildren were young. Early achievement scoreswere used as the main measure of person char-acteristics. All children were from low-incomeAfrican American families, which meant that itwas impossible to assess the ways in whichproximal processes differentially operated intwo different macrosystems (see Bronfenbren-ner, 1993), but the study, being longitudinal,could examine the interrelated impact of eachprocess, person, and context over time. Campbelland her colleagues returned in the paper’s con-clusion to the theory to point out that the modelwas supported in assessing the development ofadolescents’ feelings of self-worth.

In the research conducted by Tudge andhis colleagues (2003), proximal processes wereassessed via children’s typically occurring inter-actions with objects, materials, and peoplewithin their most common microsystems (homeand child-care setting). This was accomplishedby observing each child in the study for a


total of 20 hours. Person characteristics, specif-ically developmentally instigative characteris-tics, were also assessed in parents and children.For example, the authors measured parents’beliefs about childrearing and the children’smotivation in choosing and sustaining activi-ties. As for context, two macrosystems wereassessed—middle-class and working-class fam-ilies from a single city in the southeastern UnitedStates. Finally, time was included in the study asthe assessed child outcomes at three ages—theobservations of everyday activities and interac-tions were conducted when the children were3 years old, and their teachers’ perception oftheir academic competence was assessed at theend of the children’s first and second years ofschool. This study, we felt, did a good job ofapplying Bronfenbrenner’s theory in a system-atic fashion.

Misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s Theory

The remaining papers fall into three main groups.In each group, authors stated explicitly thatthey were using ‘‘Bronfenbrenner’s theory,’’‘‘Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model,’’ or asynonym. Those in the first group, however,used primarily Bronfenbrenner’s writings fromthe 1970s, those in the second group includedreferences from the 1980s, and the final groupdrew explicitly on Bronfenbrenner’s work fromthe 1990s but without paying attention to whatlies at the heart of the mature theory—proximalprocesses. Even in the 1970s the theory wasnot about contextual influences on developmentbut on context-individual interactions, and from1994 the theory was quite explicit that proximalprocesses were the ‘‘engines of development’’and that they were modified by both the contextand the individuals engaged in those proximalprocesses. As noted above, authors wishingto test an earlier version of the theory may,of course, do so, but in that case they mustmake explicit their intention. Failure to do that,and ignoring the major changes to the theory,constitutes a misrepresentation of the theory.

In the first group, the authors treated thetheory as though it either dealt solely withcontextual influences on development or oncontextual and individual characteristics, butwithout any attention paid to proximal processes.Three of the papers (those by Weigel, Martin,& Bennett, 2005; Ying & Han, 2006; Yu &Stiffman, 2007) focused attention exclusively

on one or more of the contextual ‘‘systems’’on which Bronfenbrenner concentrated in his1979 book. Many of the other authors in thisgroup (Atzaba-Poria, Pike, & Deater-Deckard,2004; Drake, Jonson-Reid, & Sapokaite, 2006;Kulik & Rayyan, 2006; Schwebel & Brezausek,2007) focused primarily on contextual influenceson development, although they also discussedindividual influences. Two sets of authors(Atzaba-Poria & Pike, 2008; Stewart, 2007) tookseriously the interactional nature of the theory asit existed in the late 1970s; an ecological positionis one that focuses on individual-environmentinterrelations. Stewart sought to ‘‘determine theecological factors (i.e., characteristics of theperson and of the environment) that contribute tothe academic achievement of African Americanadolescents’’ (p. 17), and Atzaba-Poria and Pikeproposed that ‘‘parents’ behavior is influencedby child characteristics . . . the proximal socialcontext . . . and the more distal social context’’(p. 18). In none of these cases, however, wasthere any mention of proximal processes, letalone an attempt to measure them.

The second group consists of seven papers(Chenoweth & Galliher, 2004; Dalla, 2004;Grogan-Kaylor & Otis, 2007; Johnston, Swim,Saltsman, Deater-Deckard, & Petrill, 2007;Jones, Forehand, Brody, & Amistead, 2003;Singal, 2006; Voydanoff, 2005) whose authorsrelied primarily on Bronfenbrenner’s ideasfrom the 1980s. Each set of authors focusedtheir main attention on contextual factors,although they all noted the importance ofindividual factors. Chenoweth and Galliherstated that ecological systems theory served asthe theoretical basis for their study of students’college aspirations, but cited two sources(Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1986), neither of whichexplicitly referred to ecological systems theory.Furthermore, they stated: ‘‘Bronfenbrennerproposed that human development should bestudied using a contextual approach, takinginto account the many possible influencesof the environment upon a child’’ (p. 1),treating the theory as one simply dealing withcontextual influences. Similarly, Singal wroteabout adopting Bronfenbrenner’s ‘‘eco-systemicframework’’ but referred only to ideas from1979 and the 1992 reprint of the 1989 chapter.Moreover, she conceptualized the framework inthe following terms: ‘‘Providing an imagery ofthe nested set of Russian dolls, Bronfenbrennerargues that various immediate and distant forces


affect an individual’s development’’ (p. 240).Not surprisingly, given this conceptualizationof the theory, Singal placed exclusive attentionto the various contextual systems. Voydanoffalso wrote that she was using Bronfenbrenner’s‘‘ecological systems approach as a framework’’(p. 667), citing Bronfenbrenner (1989), butalthough her data on work-family linkages couldhave been analyzed in the type of systemicway that Bronfenbrenner was advocating atthat time, Voydanoff treated the theory asthough it dealt exclusively with microsystemand mesosystem influences on development.Nonetheless, none of these studies involved thetype of systemic person-process-context analysisfor which Bronfenbrenner had argued from 1983to 1989, let alone any consideration of the matureform of the theory.

Jones et al. (2003) argued that they were‘‘extrapolating’’ from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979,1989) position that ‘‘multiple environments . . .in which families live cannot be viewed as mutu-ally exclusive but rather as ‘systems’ that jointlyinfluence familial behavior’’ (p. 437). To be fair,Jones and her colleagues included in their studyof parental monitoring both ‘‘structural vari-ables’’ (e.g., characteristics of the family and theneighborhood) and ‘‘psychological variables’’(maternal depression, child problem behavior,and coparenting conflict) that may influenceparental monitoring. They failed, however, toacknowledge or examine the person-contextinteractional aspects of the 1970s and 1980sversions of Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Grogan-Kaylor and Otis (2007) did better in this regard,although they relied on the 1979 book and onepaper from the 1980s, as did Dalla (2004), whorelied on the 1989 chapter. In both papers devel-opment was assumed to be a joint function of theperson and the environment, and person char-acteristics were included as an important com-ponent of development. Dalla also mentionedcomponents of the chronosystem, building onBronfenbrenner’s position that historical eventsand situations impact development. Johnstonet al. (2007) cited Bronfenbrenner (1986) as wellas the 1979 book and argued that they were usinga person–process–context design, first discussedin Bronfenbrenner and Crouter (1983). Unfor-tunately, from the point of view of applicationof the mature form of the theory, ‘‘process’’ atthis time was not yet conceptualized as proximalprocesses and had yet to be placed at the fore-front of the theory. Moreover, there is little

evidence, at least from this paper, that Johnstonand her colleagues considered processes in theway that Bronfenbrenner, in the mature form ofthe theory, stipulated, although they had datathat could have been used for this purpose. Forexample, they were interested in ‘‘the extent towhich mothers engaged in racial, ethnic, andcultural socialization practices; and the relationbetween racial, ethnic, and cultural socializationand child adjustment’’ (p. 398). Their measureof cultural socialization practices asked moth-ers the extent to which they engaged in variouspractices, with possible responses ranging fromseveral times a week to never. Furthermore, theauthors also took into account both the adoptedchildren’s age and their country of birth (Koreaor China). In principle, therefore, it would havebeen possible to analyze these data using thePPCT model.

Finally, a further five sets of authors (Butera,2005; Hossain, 2001; Jordan, 2005; McDougall,DeWit, King, Miller, & Killip, 2004; Warren,2005) at least cited work from the 1990s inwhich the mature form of the theory could befound. Unfortunately, this did not prevent theauthors of three of these papers from treatingthe theory as though it were simply a theory ofcontextual influences on developing individuals.For example, Jordan stated that she was usingecological systems theory to study media use inthe home and school. She wrote, however; ‘‘Theresearch is framed by Bronfenbrenner and Mor-ris’s (1998) conceptualization that children growup in a series of nested environments’’ (p. 525).In his study of young children’s televisionviewing, Warren wrote explicitly about tryingto ‘‘test Bronfenbrenner’s theory’’ (p. 850) byestablishing a ‘‘hypothesized set of relation-ships [that] closely parallels Bronfenbrenner’s(1979, 2001) ecological theory of child devel-opment’’ (p. 849). Hossain studied the divisionof household labor and household functioningamong Navajo families not living on reserva-tions and argued that the findings ‘‘lend supportto the use of the human ecology model in under-standing the cultural context of family roles andfunctioning (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998)’’(pp. 258–259). It was thus surprising to see nomention of the PPCT model, and no attemptto assess proximal processes, in either study.Instead, Warren focused solely on the four con-textual systems of development, from micro tomacro, and Hossain also treated the theory asthough it simply dealt with the impact of context,


stating; ‘‘Such environmental factors as one’sfamily, cultural values, economic practices, andhistorical events have important bearing on themaking and shaping of gender roles in a partic-ular cultural setting’’ (p. 256).

Butera (2005) also cited the 1998 paper butargued that this perspective ‘‘can be used toexamine the systems that surround children andtheir families and deepen our understandingof the effects of contextual variables oncollaboration and special education’’ (p. 107).Perhaps not surprisingly, the remaining citationsare almost exclusively to Bronfenbrenner’s 1979book. However, although Butera had nothing tosay about the PPCT model, she acknowledgedclearly the transactional nature of even the earlyform of the theory and stated that ‘‘individualcharacteristics make a considerable contributionto outcomes’’ (p. 114).

Finally, McDougall et al. (2004) also drewon several of Bronfenbrenner’s papers from the1990s to describe his bioecological perspec-tive as one involving the interplay of personcharacteristics, contextual factors, and proxi-mal processes. The authors found clear relationsbetween person characteristics (age, sex, andacademic achievement) and contextual factors(including socioeconomic status, ethnicity, andthe school culture) but explicitly treated peer andstudent-teacher interactions as an aspect of theirprimary contextual factor (school culture) ratherthan as proximal processes. McDougall and hercolleagues also ignored the fourth aspect of thePPCT model and, although they noted the prob-lem of conducting a purely cross-sectional study,did not describe this as a theoretical limitation.

DISCUSSION

If, as we argued at the start of this paper, theoryhas an important role to play in developmentaland family studies, it is surely necessary toapply it correctly in research. Failure to do someans that it has not been tested appropriately;data apparently supporting the theory do no suchthing if the theory has been incorrectly described,and, by the same token, a misrepresented theoryis impervious to attack from nonsupportive data.

What can explain the fact that, of these 25papers published between 2001 and 2008, only 4used the mature form of the theory and appearedto have used it appropriately in their research?One possible reason is that some scholars merelywant to provide some general theoretical support

for their view that the contexts in which develop-ing individuals exist have an influence on theirdevelopment or that both contexts and the indi-viduals themselves are influential. This truismhardly needs to be supported theoretically, andthese authors could have contented themselvessimply by citing Bronfenbrenner; they stated,however, that their research was based on orinformed by his theory, or model, or framework.

Could it be the case that some scholars whostate that they are drawing on his theory areunaware of the changes in Bronfenbrenner’stheory? There is perhaps some justification forresearchers to be unaware of some book chapters(e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999)because they may not be as easily accessibleas articles published in peer-reviewed journals.Bronfenbrenner’s book (1979), in which he laidout an early version of his theory, may be sowidely known as to overshadow completelysome chapters that appeared later. One canhardly argue, however, that a chapter from the1998 Handbook of Child Development is hardto find. There seems little justification to statethat one is relying on a theory whose own authornoted the extent to which it had changed (seeBronfenbrenner, 1989, 1999) and use materialonly or primarily from the 1970s, as was thecase with the authors of no fewer than nine ofthese papers. Worse, these authors treated thetheory as though it was purely a theory about thevarious systems of context and their influenceson development, thereby missing the ecologicalnature of the theory even in its earliest form.

Other scholars at least used a more up-to-date version of the theory, from the 1980s,when Bronfenbrenner described the importanceof process as something that linked person andcontext. Even then, however, despite statingcorrectly that he termed his theory ‘‘ecologicalsystems theory’’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1989), theseauthors did not actually apply the systems partof the theory in their research, despite writingthat their research was based on it. At best,some of the authors acknowledged the fact thatone had to examine the interdependent roles ofthe developing individuals and the contexts inwhich they were situated, though others fromthis second group continued to write as thoughBronfenbrenner was simply a theorist interestedin contextual influences on development.

Furthermore, it was not necessarily thecase that citing the theory in its matureform (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, 1995, 2001/2005;


Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner& Morris, 1998) was sufficient to ensure thatthe theory was applied correctly in research.Of the nine papers whose authors drew onBronfenbrenner’s work from the 1990s, nofewer than four still treated the theory asthough it were primarily a theory of contextualinfluences or of person-context interactionwithout any consideration of the core featureof the theory—proximal processes. The authorsof only four of these papers actually wrote aboutthe process–person–context–time model andtried to apply it in their research. Innumerableauthors include in their research some contextualvariable (social class, for example) and anindividual characteristic, such as gender, andmay test for class-gender interactions in theiroutcomes of interest. The research may well beinteresting, but it would not constitute a test ofBronfenbrenner’s theory.

We do not believe that researchers who basetheir work on a specific theory have to use thelatest version of that theory or the theory in itsentirety. Researchers can obviously choose todraw on specific concepts from the theory or onan older version. But in this case, surely thismore limited goal needs to be clearly specifiedor one can be accused of a lack of conceptualor theoretical clarity. We do not think thatresearchers would be taken seriously if theirresearch was said to be a test of Piaget’s theorybut took no account of any of his thinkingfrom the 1960s onward (when he moved fromwriting primarily about stages of development,or structural aspects, to a greater focus onmechanisms of change). Similarly, one wouldnot consider research to be an adequate testof Bandura’s social cognitive theory if thescholar only cited Bandura’s early work onsocial learning theory. It is thus unfortunate,to say the least, that so many scholars (and thereviewers of their scholarship) seem to be able totreat Bronfenbrenner’s theory as though it wassimply a theory of microsystem or macrosysteminfluences on development.

The final reason for scholars not treatingseriously the mature form of Bronfenbrenner’stheory may be that it is viewed as simply toodifficult to translate effectively into research.Bronfenbrenner himself did not make theseconnections as clear as he might have; innone of his writings did he provide a clearmethodological guide to help in the applicationof the theory. Nor did he write about any of

his own research as a way of showing howhe applied an appropriate method, preferringinstead to comment on others’ research, none ofwhich was designed specifically as a test of thetheory. Moreover, if one considers designing astudy that includes each and every aspect of thetheory, the research would indeed be a large andcomplex study. Consider, for example, all thathe wrote about the different types of importantperson characteristics—demand, force, andresource—as well as genetic attributes, thefour different contextual systems, and thethree aspects of time (micro, meso, andmacro), that include both collecting dataover time and situating the research into itshistorical time. In addition, to study proximalprocesses, the most important part of the maturetheory, requires collecting data about regularlyoccurring interactions and activities with theimportant people, symbols, and objects in thedeveloping individuals’ lives.

However, Bronfenbrenner never implied (letalone stated outright) that every aspect hadto be included within any study. His positionwas rather straightforward: A study involvingthe PPCT model should focus on proximalprocesses, showing how they are influenced bothby characteristics of the developing individualand by the context in which they occur andshowing how they are implicated in relevantdevelopmental outcomes. The simplest researchapplication could examine, for example, theways in which regularly occurring parent-childinteractions vary by an important characteristicof the child (gender would be the easiest,though not necessarily the best) and by somerelevant aspect of the context (perhaps differentethnic/racial or social-class groups), with datacollected over at least two points in time,choosing some outcome viewed as beingrelevant to parent-child interaction. Methodsfor collecting the parent-child interaction datavary but would need to be adequate toassess interactional patterns that occur regularly.Even so, a study of this type does notseem so difficult to carry out effectively andwould serve as an adequate application ofBronfenbrenner’s theory.

In conclusion, we think that scholars are doingthe field of human development and familystudies a disservice by stating that they arebasing their research on a theoretical foundationbut neither taking that theory seriously enough toconsider its development nor attempting to use


methods that are theoretically relevant. Unliketheories such as those of Piaget or Vygotsky,Bronfenbrenner’s theory is eminently accessibleto English-speaking scholars. To consider hisideas as simply relating to contextual influenceson development or even as a plea to examineperson-environment interrelations is to do histheory a gross disservice. This theory has a greatpotential to allow us insight and understandingof the processes of human development anddeserves to be tested appropriately.

REFERENCES

Adamsons, K., O’Brien, M., & Pasley, K. (2007).An ecological approach to father involvement inbiological and stepfather families. Fathering, 5,129 – 147.

Atzaba-Poria, N., & Pike, A. (2008). Correlates ofparenting for mothers and fathers from Englishand Indian backgrounds. Parenting Science andPractice, 8, 17 – 40.

Atzaba-Poria, N., Pike, A., & Deater-Deckard, K.(2004). Do risk factors for problem behaviouract in a cumulative manner? An examination ofethnic minority and majority children throughan ecological perspective. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 45, 707 – 718.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimentalecology of human development. American Psy-chologist, 32, 513 – 531.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of humandevelopment: Experiments in nature and design.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the familyas a context for human development: Researchperspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22,723 – 742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systemsin human development. Research paradigms:Present and future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G.Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons incontext: Developmental processes (pp. 25 – 49).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systemstheory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of childdevelopment (Vol. 6, pp. 187 – 249). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitivedevelopment: Research models and fugitivefindings. In R. Wonziak & K. Fischer (Eds.),Development in context: Acting and thinking inspecific environments (pp. 3 – 44). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models ofhuman development. In T. Husen & T. N.Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia

of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643 – 1647).Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecologythrough space and time: A future perspective. In P.Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Exam-ining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecologyof human development (pp. 619 – 647). Washing-ton, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in devel-opmental perspective: Theoretical and opera-tional models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D.Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment acrossthe life span: Emerging methods and concepts(pp. 3 – 28). Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). The bioecological theoryof human development. In U. Bronfenbrenner(Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecologicalperspectives on human development (pp. 3 – 15).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Original workpublished in 2001)

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beingshuman: Bioecological perspectives on humandevelopment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi-cations.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental per-spective: A biological model. PsychologicalReview, 101, 568 – 586.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Crouter, A. C. (1983).The evolution of environmental models indevelopmental research. In P. H. Mussen (SeriesEd.) & W. Kessen (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology, Vol. 1: History, theory, methods (4thed., pp. 357 – 414). New York: Wiley.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Devel-opmental science in the 21st century: Emergingquestions, theoretical models, research designsand empirical findings. Social Development, 9,115 – 125.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). Theecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon& R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of childpsychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of humandevelopment (5th ed., pp. 993 – 1023). New York:Wiley.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). Thebioecological model of human development. InW. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook ofchild psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models ofhuman development (6th ed., pp. 793 – 828). NewYork: Wiley.

Butera, G. (2005). Collaboration in the context ofAppalachia: The case of Cassie. Journal of SpecialEducation, 39, 106 – 116.

Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., & Miller-Johnson, S.(2002). The development of perceived scholasticcompetence and global self-worth in AfricanAmerican adolescents from low-income families:


The roles of family factors, early educationalintervention, and academic experience. Journalof Adolescent Research, 17, 277 – 302.

Chenoweth, E., & Galliher, R.V. (2004). Factorsinfluencing college aspirations or rural WestVirginia high school students. Journal of Researchin Rural Education, 19, 1 – 14.

Dalla, R. (2004). ’’I fell off [the mothering] track’’:Barriers to ‘‘effective mothering’’ among prosti-tuted women. Family Relations, 53, 190 – 200.

Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M., & Sapokaite, L.(2006). Rereporting of child maltreatment: Doesparticipation in other public sector servicesmoderate the likelihood of a second maltreatmentreport? Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 1201 – 1226.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1974). Children of the GreatDepression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1996). Human lives in changingsocieties: Life course and developmental insights.In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, Jr., & E. J. Costello(Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 31 – 62). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Goldhaber, D. E. (2000). Theories of humandevelopment: Integrative perspectives. MountainView, CA: Mayfield Publishing.

Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Otis, M. D. (2007). Thepredictors of parental use of corporal punishment.Family Relations, 56, 80 – 91.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competingparadigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitativeresearch (pp. 105 – 117). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Hossain, Z. (2001). Division of household laborand family functioning in off-reservation NavajoIndian families. Family Relations, 50, 255 – 261.

Johnston, K. E., Swim, J. K., Saltsman, B. M.,Deater-Deckard, K., & Petrill, S. A. (2007).Mothers’ racial, ethnic, and cultural, socializationof transracially adopted Asian children. FamilyRelations, 56, 390 – 402.

Jones, D. J., Forehand, R., Brody, G., & Armistead, L.(2003). Parental monitoring in African American,single mother-headed families: An ecologicalapproach to the identification of predictors.Behavior Modification, 27, 435 – 457.

Jordan, A. B. (2005). Learning to use books andtelevision: An exploratory study in the ecologicalperspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 48,523 – 538.

Kulik, L., & Rayyan, F. (2006). Relationshipsbetween dual-earner spouses, strategies for copingwith home-work demands and emotional well-being: Jewish and Arab-Muslim women in Israel.Community, Work and Family, 9, 457 – 477.

McDougall, J., DeWit, D. J., King, G., Miller, L.T., & Killip, S. (2004). High school-aged youths’attitudes toward their peers with disabilities: Therole of school and student interpersonal factors.

International Journal of Disability, Developmentand Education, 51, 287 – 313.

Richters, J. E. (1997). The Hubble hypothesis andthe developmentalist’s dilemma. Development andPsychopathology, 9, 193 – 229.

Riggins-Caspers, K. M., Cadoret, R. J., Knutson, J.F., & Langbehn, D. (2003). Biology-environmentinteraction and evocative biology-environmentcorrelation: Contributions of harsh discipline andparental psychopathology to problem adolescentbehaviors. Behavior Genetics, 33, 205 – 220.

Schwebel, D. C. & Brezausek, C. M. (2007). The roleof context in risk for pediatric injury. Influencesfrom the home and child care environments.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 105 – 130.

Singal, N. (2006). An ecosystemic approach forunderstanding inclusive education: An Indiancase study. European Journal of Psychology ofEducation, XXI, 239 – 252.

Stewart, E. B. (2007). Individual and school structuraleffects on African American high school students’academic achievement. High School Journal, 91,16 – 34.

Tudge, J. R. H. (2008). The everyday lives ofyoung children: Culture, class, and childrearingin diverse societies. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Tudge, J. R. H., Gray, J., & Hogan, D. M. (1997).Ecological perspectives in human development:A comparison of Gibson and Bronfenbrenner.In J. Tudge, M. Shanahan, & J. Valsiner(Eds.), Comparisons in human development:Understanding time and context (pp. 72 – 105).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tudge, J. R. H., Odero, D. A., Hogan, D. M., &Etz, K. E. (2003). Relations between the everydayactivities of preschoolers and their teachers’perceptions of their competence in the first yearsof school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,18, 42 – 64.

Tudge, J. R. H., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S.Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, inter-personal, and individual approach to development.In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Edu-cational psychology: A century of contributions(pp. 207 – 228). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Voydanoff, P. (2005). Social integration, work-familyconflict and facilitation, and job and maritalquality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67,666 – 679.

Warren, R. (2005). Parental mediation of children’stelevision viewing in low-income families. Journalof Communication, 55, 847 – 863.

Weigel, D. J., Martin, S. S., & Bennett, K. K.(2005). Ecological influences of the home andchild-care center of preschool-age children’s lit-eracy development. Reading Research Quarterly,40, 204 – 233.


Winegar, L. T. (1997). Developmental research andcomparative perspectives: Applications to devel-opmental science. In J. Tudge, M. Shanahan, &J. Valsiner (Eds.), Comparisons in human devel-opment: Understanding time and context (pp. 13 –33). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ying, Y. W., & Han, M. (2006). The effectof intergenerational conflict and school-based

racial discrimination on depression and academicachievement in Filipino and American adolescents.Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 4,19 – 35.

Yu, M., & Stiffman, A. R. (2007). Culture and envi-ronment as predictors of alcohol abuse/dependencesymptoms in American Indian youths. AddictiveBehaviors, 32, 2253 – 2259.

Uses and Misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory of Human Development

Documents

Transcript of Uses and Misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory of Human Development