Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model and the

contemporary adolescent.
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.