whereby an individual is shaped by the historical time they live through. Societal changes such as industrial growth, changing political regimes, wars and conflicts all impact on the everyday lives, experiences, prospects, and outcomes for people living through those periods. The second is about timing in lives, because when events occur in someone’s life affects their developmental impact. For example, the death of a parent in childhood will impact differently on someone’s life compared to losing a parent in adulthood. The third principle, “linked lives,” is about how experiences of individuals impact on others through social ties and personal networks. For example, marital breakdown will impact on a couple, their children, extended family members, and friends. The fourth principle is human agency, whereby individuals construct their lives and make choices within their life circumstances and available opportunities. For example, someone might choose to go to university, but this decision is made in the context of family, social, educational, and financial circumstances.
These principles were explicated through Elder’s classic three‐generational study into children who lived through the Great Depression in the 1930s (Elder, 1974). It showed how the trajectories and consequences for individuals varied depending on the age and stage of their lives when the economic slump occurred, and other factors such as their gender, socioeconomic status, neighborhood, and family situation. The ripple effects from events occurring at the macro level (in this case, economic decline) impacted differentially but significantly on parental work stability, marital relations, and subsequently children’s family life, behavior, well‐being, and education. This can help us to understand how developmental processes occur through the lifespan, how the timing of experiences within a person’s life can affect outcomes, and how historical events can have markedly different effects on development across population cohorts. Children live in “changing ecologies” (Elder, 1998, p. 7), and historical change at the macro level eventually transforms the development of individuals through changing primary relationships within the family and peer group (Elder, 1995).
Core features of ecological perspectives
From these theories, we see that the fundamental premise of ecological perspectives applied to human development is how an individual both influences and is influenced by interactions with their environment. The development of individuals does not occur in isolation. Their interactions with the environment are reciprocal, and they are part of a complex network of relationships and systems.
There are several other core features of ecological perspectives on development. One is the role of context. The environment, or ecology, in which an individual is situated shapes their development. The context can be represented as different layers or systems based on what and who an individual interacts with, within their immediate environment, and which structures have more remote influences. Development is contextual because of the complex interaction between personal characteristics and environmental factors.
A second common feature is the emphasis on process. Development is seen as ongoing, fluid, and longitudinal, rather than static and with a definable end point. Because of this we see attention to the progressive nature of development across the lifespan rather than just in childhood. The individual is also active in their own development. They perceive, explore, interpret, and interact with their environment rather than passively spectating or responding to stimuli. There is however consideration of how the actions of individuals operate within certain external constraints. The contexts within which people are situated (such as schools, families, churches) are cultivated through collective action for a shared purpose over time, and therefore have established norms, expectations, and practices, often tacit, which regulate behavior and frame interactions. Individual agency is, therefore, “socially regulated” within available options, possibilities, or affordances of the environment (Barker, 1968).
Finally, there is emphasis on time in development. For example, the stability of development, and experiences of continuity and change in the individual and their environment are of interest. So too are notions of intensity, in relation to the frequency and duration of interactions in the short term (minutes, days) and long term (across the lifespan). Timing is also significant for both when in someone’s life trajectory an event or experience occurs, but also the point in history that people are living through and the sociocultural shifts and changes that occur over time.
How Ecological Perspectives can be used to Understand Social Development
A child’s social development forms the basis for how they come to understand the social world, how they form and maintain relationships with others, and how they make moral decisions. These all require sophisticated skills and rely on individuals being able to judge what is appropriate in situations based on complex social judgments and in response to subtle social cues. How children navigate this is shaped by their previous experiences of relationships and the interactions they have with others. They will see how others behave and react towards them and others – contributing towards their own self‐perception. They will also be influenced by cultural values, which set out expected norms surrounding emotional expression, social actions, and decisions about moral conduct. Children’s social development therefore needs to be considered in view of their social and cultural experiences.
The benefit of ecological perspectives here is their attention to the multitude of intersecting factors that contribute to social development, and their recognition of the multilayered spheres of influence – from those that are direct and immediate, to those that are more remote and subtle. Ecological perspectives emphasize relationships and reciprocity. The person is not a lone individual – they are part of a complex system of networked interactions. Ecological perspectives are therefore, by their nature, social and can offer a valuable lens for understanding various domains of social development.
It would not be feasible in this chapter to explore multiple aspects of social development. Therefore, the intention is to examine two focused examples (namely, parenting and attachment, and bullying) and explore in more detail the contribution of ecological perspectives to our understanding of these specific areas.
Parenting and attachment
Attachment is the strong affectional bond established between a child and their caregiver (Chapter 23, this volume). Bowlby (1969) claimed that infants have a biological predisposition to form attachments, which is expressed through sucking, clinging, smiling, vocalizing, and crying. Adults respond to these signals, the child then responds to the adult, and relationships are formed through this ongoing mutual exchange. Adult sensitivity to the child’s behaviors, and attunement to their physical and emotional needs is the basis of effective parenting and establishes attachment. Secure attachment provides children with warmth, intimacy, and stability, and creates the optimal conditions for ongoing development. In contrast, unresponsive, neglectful, or inconsistent caregiving can result in insecure attachment. Although not inevitable, insecure patterns of attachment can be a risk factor for poorer developmental outcomes (Sroufe, 2005).
From an ecological perspective, the primary attachment relationship is the first context for children’s development (Harney, 2007), and the reciprocal interactions between parent and child form the microsystem. Through these everyday interactions, they form an internal representation about themselves and others. This cognitive representation, known as the internal working model, provides the template for future interactions and affects expectations of other relationships (Bowlby, 1969). Children expecting warm responsive behavior in others will likely approach new social encounters with openness and positivity. Those expecting rejection will approach others with caution and hostility. In turn, these actions will provoke certain responses in others, which can initiate a chain of events with differential consequences (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
One
