Social work theory · Volume B: Relational & Systemic

Ecological systems theory

Ecological systems theory is a theory of human development proposed by the American developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner.

1. What it is

Ecological systems theory is a theory of human development proposed by the American developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner. It holds that development takes place through a person’s continuing interaction with a set of nested environments, from the immediate settings of daily life to the broad cultural and historical context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bronfenbrenner described these environments as “a set of nested structures, each inside the next, like a set of Russian dolls” (1979, p. 3). The theory differs from general systems theory (see General systems theory) because it has its own developmental lineage and asks how environments shape the growing person over time. It also differs from the ecological perspective in social work (see Ecological perspective in social work), which draws on ecology to describe person–environment transactions and adaptation in practice.

Microsystem. The microsystem is the pattern of activities, roles and relationships a developing person experiences in a setting with direct, face-to-face contact (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For a child, typical microsystems include the family, early childhood service, school, peer group and sports club. Development is most directly shaped by interactions in microsystems, especially by reciprocal relationships that become more complex over time.

Mesosystem. The mesosystem is the set of connections between two or more microsystems in which the person takes part. Examples include the relationship between a child’s family and school, or between a young person’s peers and parents (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Development is supported when microsystems are linked by communication, trust and shared goals, and undermined when they conflict.

Exosystem. The exosystem consists of settings in which the developing person does not take part directly but which affect them through events in their microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). A parent’s workplace is a common example: long hours, insecure employment or a supportive manager affect parenting and family life. Local government decisions, health services and parents’ social networks can also form part of a child’s exosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1986).

Macrosystem. The macrosystem refers to the overarching patterns of culture, belief systems, ideology, economic arrangements and social policy that shape the lower-level systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Laws on parental leave, cultural norms about child-rearing, racism and economic inequality are macrosystem influences. Bronfenbrenner described the macrosystem as a societal blueprint that gives consistency to the settings within a culture.

Chronosystem. The chronosystem adds the dimension of time. It includes changes in the person and environment across the life course, normative and non-normative transitions such as starting school, parental separation or migration, and the historical period in which a person grows up (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). The same event can have different effects depending on when it occurs in a life and in history.

The bioecological model. In later work, Bronfenbrenner revised his theory into the bioecological model, summarised as the Process–Person–Context–Time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Its central concept is proximal processes: regular, progressively more complex interactions between an active person and the people, objects and symbols in their immediate environment. These processes are described as the “engines” of development. Person characteristics, including dispositions, resources (such as abilities and experiences) and demand characteristics (such as age, gender or appearance), influence how proximal processes operate. Context refers to the five systems, and time is considered at micro, meso and macro levels (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

2. Historical development

Bronfenbrenner built on Kurt Lewin’s (1935) field theory, which held that behaviour arises from the interaction of person and environment. He was critical of developmental psychology for studying children in unfamiliar laboratory situations, which he argued told researchers little about how development occurs in real life (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). His theory became independent of general systems theory because it drew on developmental psychology, focused on the developing person, and generated testable propositions about the conditions that promote development. Bronfenbrenner was also involved in establishing the United States Head Start program, which reflected his view that policy shapes children’s lives.

Social work took up Bronfenbrenner’s work from the 1980s, often in combination with Germain and Gitterman’s life model (see Person-in-environment and C1). Belsky’s (1980) ecological model of child maltreatment was especially influential in child protection, because it showed how individual, family, community and cultural factors combine to produce risk. Ecological thinking underpins many assessment frameworks for children and families, which consider the child’s developmental needs, parenting capacity, and family and environmental factors together (Connolly & Harms, 2015).

3. Practical guidance

Ecological systems theory helps workers assess and intervene across the levels of a person’s environment.

• Assess each system. Map the child or adult’s microsystems and ask about mesosystem links, exosystem pressures and macrosystem conditions. An ecomap is a practical way to record this with clients.
• Strengthen mesosystem connections. Facilitate communication between family, school, health services and other microsystems. Care team meetings for children in out-of-home care are an example.
• Identify exosystem influences. Ask about parents’ employment, housing, Centrelink arrangements and access to services. Advocacy in these settings may benefit a child more than direct work with the child.
• Name macrosystem factors. Recognise how poverty, racism, gendered norms and policy settings shape families’ circumstances, and avoid attributing their effects to individual failure.
• Consider timing. Use the chronosystem to understand how transitions and historical events, such as migration, bushfires or the COVID-19 pandemic, affected development at particular ages.
• Focus on proximal processes. In early intervention, support regular, warm and increasingly complex interactions between children and caregivers, because these are the main drivers of development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Ecological systems theory provides a clear, memorable framework for organising the many influences on development. It legitimises attention to settings beyond the family and links individual development to policy and culture. It has had wide influence on research, early childhood policy and child welfare assessment (Belsky, 1980; Connolly & Harms, 2015). The bioecological model added a stronger account of the active person and of developmental processes.

Limitations. Tudge et al. (2009) found that many studies cite Bronfenbrenner’s early model and ignore the later bioecological theory, so the framework is often used as a list of contexts without the emphasis on proximal processes. The model can become descriptive, mapping influences without explaining how they interact. Vélez-Agosto et al. (2017) argued that placing culture in a distant macrosystem underestimates how culture is present in everyday interactions. From an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective, the nested model may not capture relationships with Country, kin and spirit, which are not easily separated into levels. The theory also says relatively little about power and structural oppression (see Family D).

Overall importance. Ecological systems theory is one of the most widely used frameworks in child and family social work. It gives practitioners a structure for multi-level assessment and reminds them that development occurs in context. Its value is greatest when the full bioecological model is used and when its macrosystem is analysed critically.

5. References

• Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist, 35(4), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.4.320
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage.
• Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
• Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley.
• Connolly, M., & Harms, L. (2015). Social work: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. McGraw-Hill.
• Tudge, J. R. H., 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.
• Vélez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-Molina, S., & García Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory revision: Moving culture from the macro into the micro. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 900–910.