parenting practices they subsequently adopt with their own children. An ecological perspective considers individual and contextual factors that contribute to the continuity or discontinuity of intergenerational transmission, including moderators such as parent’s later attachment relationships, social context, and characteristics of the child (Sette et al., 2015). While parents’ own attachment representations may be used to interpret and respond to their child’s cues, they will also adapt and finely tune their actions in response to the immediate caregiving experience. Characteristics of the child (such as their temperament, personality), amount of parental support available, and how the parent perceives themselves all contribute (Solomon & George, 1996). Parenting is a practice, and the way individuals approach this role is dependent on their personal characteristics, their own attachment experiences, and the context they are in (River et al., 2019; Vaughn et al., 1979; Yoo, 2019).
This shows the influence of ecological factors on parenting and highlights the need to consider other systems that are immediate and more distant to the parent–child relationship (Lickenbrock & Braungart‐Rieker, 2015). For example, at the macro level, there is cultural variation in the desirability of certain attachment behaviors, diversity in norms surrounding the expression of emotion, between‐country differences in child‐rearing practices, and international variations in governmental policies around childcare and parental leave – all of which impact on parenting at the local level (Bornstein et al., 2008; Köster et al., 2016; Sette et al., 2015; Weisner, 2005).
At the chronological level, social norms about “when” it is acceptable to become a parent mean that the experience of parenting may be different depending on when in someone’s life this occurs. For example, there are prevailing societal narratives in Western contexts that position teenage parents negatively and stereotype them as “at risk” or vulnerable to dysfunctional outcomes (Chase, 2019). Whilst there have been historical changes in the manifestations of this, negative portrayals remain and can shape the way young mothers present themselves (Jones et al., 2019).
There are also historical changes in the way that childhood and parenting is conceptualized, with changing family structures, increased diversity in parental roles, and a tendency towards more democratic approaches to contemporary parenting (Gabriel, 2017; Volling, 2020). Additionally, at a societal level, the widespread increase in technology has changed the demands on parents raising children in the digital age (Livingstone & Ross, 2020), and the strategies adopted to regulate children’s technology use have been shown to vary depending on child characteristics and parents’ digital literacy (Benedetto & Ingrassia, 2020) – adding further support to ecological positions. Theoretical positions and scholarly frames of reference need to expand to reflect society as it evolves, therefore our understandings of attachment and children’s social development need to be considered within shifting social constructions of parenting and childhood (Gabriel, 2017). In this vein, the emphasis that ecological perspectives place on change and chronology can be helpful in ensuring the currency of ideas around attachment and parenting to modern life.
There is the risk of Western egocentrism in theories about attachment and parenting because despite attachment theory recognizing the role of context and culture (Thompson, 2021), there is a more established empirical research base conducted in Western compared to non‐Western contexts. There is a need for more contextually sensitive research which adds insight into the cultural meaning and interpretations of certain parenting practices (Thompson, 2021). This is where the application of ecological perspectives could be particularly valuable. They force us to examine intersecting factors and avoid applying overly simplified cause–effect models of development that ignore variability and complexity. They also cause us to reflect on the questions posed by research, and the methodological tools used in empirical investigations to ensure they adequately account for context, process, and time. These points will be revisited later in the chapter.
Bullying
Turning to another example, the phenomenon of bullying illustrates how microsystems can interact in children’s social development. Bullying is likely to be a familiar part of young people’s social experience either through experiencing it, witnessing it, or hearing about it happening to others. It is a social problem, involving repeated aggressive behaviors intended to cause harm to others where there is some form of power imbalance between the aggressor and victim (Olweus, 1997; and Chapter 32, this volume). While reported rates vary between countries (Bradshaw et al., 2017), estimated prevalence based on self‐reported international data suggests between 10 and 20% of children experience bullying more than occasionally at school (Savahl et al., 2019). It is associated with a range of negative consequences on physical and psychological health (Iyer‐Eimerbrink & Jensen‐Campbell, 2019), and so can play a significant part in shaping children’s development.
Research into bullying often examines the characteristics of children (such as personality traits, skills, and attributes) in bully and victim roles to explain their involvement (see Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015). A concern with attempts to “profile” bullies and victims is the implication that these are consistent roles which remain stable, and it also positions the child as the cause of the problem and neglects outside influences (Swearer & Doll, 2001). Additionally, dichotomizing bullying into “bullies” and “victims” implies that bullying is a dyadic encounter only involving a bully and a victim. As research in the field has progressed, these assumptions have been questioned. First, evidence has shown that children can be both bullies and victims and may move fluidly between these roles at different times (Swearer & Hymel, 2015). In addition, there has been increased attention on the wider peer group and the role they take in bullying situations through witnessing, encouraging, or seeking to prevent it (Salmivalli et al., 1996). From an ecological perspective, bullying can be understood by examining the interactions between the characteristics of the people involved and the social context they are part of (Swearer & Doll, 2001).
The peer group and classroom environment are examples of microsystems that individuals interact with, and which impact on their development, and evidence suggests that the classroom peer ecology can enable or disable bullying (Saarento & Salmivalli, 2015). The reactions of peers establish the classroom norms surrounding bullying, which subsequently impacts on the behaviors and responses of those within the group. It has been shown that the responses of peers who witness bullying are influenced by a range of factors such as gender, levels of empathy, popularity in the peer group, relationship to the children involved, and perceived peer pressure to intervene (Lambe et al., 2019). Bullying is, therefore, part of the social ecology of the peer group.
There has been a shift towards applying ecological perspectives to understand bullying, with some examples of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system being used to examine risk and protective factors for bullying involvement (Espelage et al., 2013). Hong and Espelage (2012) argued that children enacting or experiencing bullying are part of a complex interrelated ecological system. The young person is at the center, and their personal characteristics interact with the settings around them. Certain internal attributes can predispose children to be more prone to bullying, but these characteristics are mediated by other factors. Bullying can occur because of several conditions interacting together at different levels (Swearer & Doll, 2001).
Elements in the microsystem such as parent–child relations, family experiences, parenting approaches, school environment, and peer relationships are risk factors for bullying (Hong & Espelage, 2012; Lee, 2011). The local neighborhood where schools are based also seems to influence bullying, such as city versus rural settings, and strength of community ties (Mazur et al., 2017; Pitsia & Mazzone, 2020). Factors such as immigration and poverty impact on the community environment, which in turn can affect contexts such as family and school (Hong et al., 2014b). These findings indicate that children’s behavior in school is shaped by the wider community context they are situated in and associated socioeconomic factors.
Within the mesosystem, teacher involvement in the relations between
