target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#fb3_img_img_91019969-acd4-5f22-a1fc-078301237950.jpg" alt="The microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem are represented as concentric circles. The chronosystem is denoted below the circles as a right-pointing arrow labeled time."/>Description
Figure 1.6 Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory
Source: Adapted from Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006).
The individual is embedded in the innermost level of context, the microsystem, which includes interactions with the immediate physical and social environment surrounding the person, such as family, peers, and school. Because the microsystem contains the developing person, it has an immediate and direct influence on his or her development. For example, peer relationships can influence a person’s sense of self-esteem, social skills, and emotional development.
The next level, the mesosystem, refers to the relations and interactions among microsystems, or connections among contexts. For example, experiences in the home (one microsystem) influence those at school (another microsystem); parents who encourage and provide support for reading will influence the child’s experiences in the classroom. Like the microsystem, the mesosystem has a direct influence on the individual because he or she is a participant in it.
The exosystem consists of settings in which the individual is not a participant but that nevertheless influence him or her. For example, a child typically does not participate in a parent’s work setting, yet the work setting has an indirect influence on the child because it affects the parent’s mood. The availability of funding for schools, another exosystem factor, indirectly affects children by influencing the availability of classroom resources. The exosystem is an important contribution to our understanding of development because it shows us how the effects of outside factors trickle down and indirectly affect children and adults.
The macrosystem is the greater sociocultural context in which the microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem are embedded. It includes cultural values, legal and political practices, and other elements of the society at large. The macrosystem indirectly influences the child because it affects each of the other contextual levels. For example, cultural beliefs about the value of education (macrosystem) influence funding decisions made at national and local levels (exosystem), as well as what happens in the classroom and in the home (mesosystem and microsystem). The accompanying Lives in Context feature illustrates how one element of the macrosystem, historical events, may influence development.
Lives in Context
Sociohistorical Influences on Development
Sociohistorical influences, such as the Great Depression (1929–1939), contribute to cohort, or generational, differences in development.
Photo12/UIG via Getty Images
Historical events, such as wars, times of prosperity, economic and natural disasters, and periods of social unrest, are contextual influences that shape our world and our development. The effect of historical events on development depends in part on when they occur in a person’s life (Elder et al., 2016).
The same historical event is experienced differently by successive cohorts, reflecting the fact that they are in different life stages, with different social roles, levels of maturity, and life experiences. For example, researchers examined the influence of the Great Depression (1929–1941) and World War II (1939–1945) on two cohorts of California-born Americans, followed from childhood to older adulthood, over a 70-year period (Elder & George, 2016).
These two cohorts offer striking examples of how sociohistorical context influences development.
The older Oakland cohort (born in 1920–1921) were children during the affluent 1920s, a time of economic growth in California, and they experienced a prosperous and relatively stress-free childhood. They entered adolescence during the Great Depression, a period of severe economic stress in which unemployment skyrocketed and people’s savings were depleted. As adolescents during the Great Depression, the Oakland cohort tended to behave responsibly and assist their families in coping. The boys often assumed jobs outside the home to aid financially troubled families, which enhanced their social independence and reduced their exposure to family stress. However, girls spent more time at home caring for siblings and performing household chores, as many mothers worked outside the home; they were exposed to greater amounts of family stress and showed poorer adjustment than did the boys. The Oakland cohort completed high school just prior to the onset of World War II, and over time, nearly all of the young men entered the armed forces.
Unlike the Oakland cohort, individuals in the Berkeley Guidance Study (born in 1928–1929) experienced the Great Depression during their vulnerable early childhood years. The children thus experienced economic scarcity and family discord early in life, at a time when they were very dependent on family. The Berkeley cohort entered adolescence during World War II, a period of additional economic and emotional stress resulting from empty households (as both parents worked to support the war effort) and the military service and war trauma of older brothers. As adolescents, the Berkley boys experienced greater emotional difficulties, poorer attitudes toward school, and less hope, self-direction, and confidence about their future than did the boys in the Oakland cohort. Like the girls in the Oakland cohort, the Berkeley girls spent time at home. They experienced stress but showed better adjustment than the Oakland girls, who experienced multiple stressors and transitions of adolescence (such as puberty and changes in social roles) simultaneously with the onset of the Great Depression.
Although the Berkeley boys tended to be troubled in adolescence, they demonstrated resilience in adulthood, largely because of the influence of military service. Three quarters of the males in the Berkeley sample served in the military between 1945 and the end of the Korean War in the early 1950s. The most disadvantaged young men tended to join the military early, and early entry into the military predicted personal growth. Military service appeared to offer several opportunities, such as the chance to begin again and reconsider their lives, to travel, and to take advantage of the GI Bill of Rights, which enabled them to expand their education and acquire new skills after the war.
These two cohorts of young people offer striking examples of how sociohistorical context influences development. Context always plays a role in development—not only in times of social upheaval but every day and for every generation.
What Do You Think?
1 Consider the sociohistorical context in which you were raised. What historical and societal events may have influenced you? What events have shaped your generation’s childhood and adolescence?
2 Consider the societal and cultural events that your parents may have experienced in childhood and adolescence. What technology was available? What historical events did they experience? What were the popular fads of their youth? What influence do you think these sociohistorical factors may have had on your parents’ development?
A final element of the bioecological system is the chronosystem, which refers to how the bioecological system changes over time. As people grow and change, they take on and let go of various roles. For example, graduating from college, getting married, and becoming a parent involve changes in roles and shifts in microsystems. These shifts in contexts, called ecological transitions, occur throughout life.
Recently, the bioecological model has been criticized for its vague explanation of development,
