JONATHAN R. H. TUDGE,IRINA MOKROVA,BRIDGET E. HATFIELD, AND RACHANA B. KARNIK The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Uses and Misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory of Human Development

This paper evaluates the application of Bron- researchers with a common scientific language fenbrenner’s bioecological theory as it is repre- and guiding empirical studies in such a way sented in empirical work on families and their as to allow findings from different studies relationships. We describe the ‘‘mature’’ form to be evaluated with a common rubric. The of bioecological theory of the mid-1990s and goal of much empirical work, on the other beyond, with its focus on proximal processes at hand, besides acquiring new information, is the center of the Process-Person-Context-Time to test the accuracy and goodness of fit of model. We then examine 25 papers published theories that aim to describe the phenomena since 2001, all explicitly described as being under study. Some researchers argue that their based on Bronfenbrenner’s theory, and show initial work is deliberately atheoretical (as in that all but 4 rely on outmoded versions of the the application of grounded theory methods) theory, resulting in conceptual confusion and or purely inductive (descriptive studies). Many inadequate testing of the theory. empirical studies, however, are guided by some theoretical framework from which the researcher A number of scholars (see, e.g., Goldhaber, operates, consciously or not. In the latter case, 2000; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Richters, 1997; for the clarity and integrity of scientific thought Tudge, 2008; Winegar, 1997) have argued as well as for compatibility of findings, it convincingly that there should be a tight is important to make explicit the theoretical connection between one’s theory, the methods framework on which the research is based. that one uses, and one’s analytic strategy. The Another benefit of making a theory explicit meaning of theory in any scientific field is to while conducting or reporting a study is in provide a framework within which to explain enhancing the understanding of a particular connections among the phenomena under study theory, either by providing supporting or and to provide insights leading to the discovery nonsupporting evidence. An empirical study that of new connections. Although we recognize does not properly represent a theory on which it that any theory is a representation of reality, is based, however, creates a twofold disservice. among its purposes are those of providing First, it misleads students and fellow researchers about the contents and propositions of the theory, thus providing a flawed heuristic tool. Second, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, it prevents a fair test of the theory, thus not PO Box 26170, The University of North Carolina at allowing useful adjustments to be made. Greensboro, Greensboro NC 27402-6170. ([email protected]) The main goal of this paper is to present the Key Words: bioecological theory, Bronfenbrenner, ecolog- essence of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological ical theory, PPCT, Process–Person–Context–Time model, theory in its ‘‘mature’’ form and examine the proximal processes. ways contemporary family and developmental 198 Journal of Family Theory & Review 1 (December 2009): 198–210 Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 199 scholars use and misuse it in empirical studies. exosystem, and macrosystem), whereas he later After a brief overview of the origins and devel- engaged in self-criticism for discounting the opments in bioecological theory, we present the role the person plays in his or her own key elements and propositions of the theory in development and for focusing too much on greater detail. Then, we use a sample of 25 context (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). Interesting empirical studies, said to be explicitly based on concepts such as molar activities, ecological Bronfenbrenner’s theory, to examine the ways experiments, ecological validity, and ecological in which the theory was applied and to discuss transitions, given an important role in his earliest the appropriateness of application. Finally, we work (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979), virtually consider a number of possible explanations for disappeared from his later writings. the misapplications that we identify. Nonetheless, although Bronfenbrenner (1989, Our goal in this paper is thus to evaluate 1999) argued that the 1977 and 1979 versions the ways in which Bronfenbrenner’s theory of the theory had been altered, revised, and has been used in recently published research. extended, his theory was always (and explicitly) Ourintentionistoassesstheextenttowhich ecological, stressing person-context interrelat- the theory was accurately represented and the edness (Tudge, Gray & Hogan, 1997). In none research methods or analyses were linked to the of his theory-related writings, even the earliest, theory. Initially, therefore, we will describe the did he focus exclusively on contextual factors. theory as it developed into its mature form. The single most important difference from his early writings is the later concern with processes of human development. In some of the chapters ABRIEF OVERVIEW OF BRONFENBRENNER’S written in the 1980s (Bronfenbrenner, 1988; THEORY Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983), he referred Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development to ‘‘process’’ as that which could explain the is a theory that was, until Bronfenbrenner died connection between some aspect of the context in 2005, in a continual state of development. (culture or social class, for example) or some This is, of course, true of all theories; one aspect of the individual (e.g., gender) and an cannot give an adequate account of Piaget’s outcome of interest. It was only in the 1990s, theory by describing only his earliest books. however, that proximal processes were defined This point does not simply apply to theories that as the key factor in development (Bronfenbren- are developed over the course of a half century; ner, 1994, 1995, 1999; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, Vygotsky, for example, was actively engaged in 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). It was psychology for only a little more than a decade, also from this time onward that he discussed the but three distinct phases can be identified, and Process-Person-Context-Time model (PPCT for scholars need to distinguish among them when short) that has become the essence of his the- describing his theory (Tudge & Scrimsher, ory (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & 2003). Bronfenbrenner, however, was a very Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). self-reflective theorist and fairly frequently Scholars may, of course, choose to use an noted the changing nature of his theory. For earlier version of the theory as the foundation example, he wrote: ‘‘I have been pursuing a of their research; they may also choose to hidden agenda: that of re-assessing, revising, base their study on only some of the major and extending—as well as regretting and even concepts of the developed version. In either renouncing—some of the conceptions set forth case, however, this needs to be stated explicitly; in my 1979 monograph’’ (Bronfenbrenner, neither the field nor the theory is well served 1989, p. 187). He was most explicit about this if the study’s authors write that they are reassessment in his 1999 chapter, where he stated using ‘‘Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory’’ or that ‘‘it is useful to distinguish two periods: the ‘‘Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model’’ but first ending with the publication of the Ecology instead use an earlier or partial version of the of Human Development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), theory. Conceptual incoherence is likely to result and the second characterized by a series when studies, written in the first decade of of papers that call the original model into this century, are all described as being based question’’ (p. 4). His earlier theorizing gave on Bronfenbrenner’s theory but some use ideas pride of place to aspects of the context (the taken from the 1970s or 1980s and others from famous concepts of microsystem, mesosystem, the 1990s. The full theory in its developed form 200 Journal of Family Theory & Review deals with the interrelations among the following consideration; and the social continuities and four PPCT concepts. changes occurring over time through the life course and the historical period during which the person has lived. (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 996, Process italics in the original) Of these the first concept plays the crucial role Bronfenbrenner stated that these two propo- (the ‘‘primary mechanisms’’) in development. sitions ‘‘are theoretically interdependent and Proximal processes feature in two central subject to empirical test. An operational research ‘‘propositions’’ that appear in several of design that permits their simultaneous investiga- Bronfenbrenner’s later publications. The first tionisreferredtoasaProcess-Person-Context- states: Time model’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 996). Thus, in order to implement a study [H]uman development takes place through pro- that is guided by bioecological theory, all four cesses of progressively more complex reciprocal elements of the model should be present. If a interaction between an active, evolving biopsycho- logical human organism and the persons, objects, research design, for whatever reason, does not and symbols in its immediate external environ- permit adequate assessment of one or more of the ment. To be effective, the interaction must occur elements, this fact should be clearly acknowl- on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of edged in order to preserve the integrity of the time. Such enduring forms of interaction in the theory. immediate environment are referred to as proxi- mal processes. (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 996, italics in the original) Person Bronfenbrenner acknowledged the relevance of The examples that he provided (‘‘playing with biological and genetic aspects of the person a young child; child-child activities; group or (Bronfenbrenner, 2001/2005; Bronfenbrenner & solitary play, reading, learning new skills’’ and Ceci, 1994). He devoted more attention, how- so on) are the types of things that regularly go ever, to the personal characteristics that individ- on in the lives of developing individuals. They uals bring with them into any social situation constitute the engines of development because it (Bronfenbrenner, 1993, 1995; Bronfenbrenner is by engaging in these activities and interactions & Morris, 1998). He divided these characteris- that individuals come to make sense of their tics into three types, which he termed demand, world and understand their place in it, and both resource,andforce characteristics. Demand play their part in changing the prevailing order characteristics are those to which he had referred while fitting into the existing one. in earlier writings as ‘‘personal stimulus’’ char- As Bronfenbrenner made increasingly explicit, acteristics, those that act as an immediate stimu- perhaps responding to the fact that he contin- lus to another person, such as age, gender, skin ued to be cited as a theorist of context, on color, and physical appearance. These types of the basis of his 1979 book, proximal processes characteristics may influence initial interactions are fundamental to the theory. The nature of because of the expectations formed immedi- proximal processes, however, varies according ately. Resource characteristics, by contrast, are to aspects of the individual and of the con- not immediately apparent, though sometimes text—both spatial and temporal (Bronfenbren- they are induced, with differing degrees of ner, 1995, 1999, 2001/2005; Bronfenbrenner & accuracy, from the demand characteristics that Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). are seen. These are characteristics that relate As he explained in the second of the two central partly to mental and emotional resources such propositions: as past experiences, skills, and intelligence and also to social and material resources (access to The form, power, content, and direction of good food, housing, caring parents, educational the proximal processes effecting development vary systematically as a joint function of the opportunities appropriate to the needs of the par- characteristics of the developing person;of ticular society, and so on). Finally, force charac- the environment—both immediate and more teristics are those that have to do with differences remote—in which the processes are taking place; of temperament, motivation, persistence, and the thenatureofthedevelopmental outcomes under like. According to Bronfenbrenner, two children Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 201 may have equal resource characteristics, but their set of values, but for any particular value system developmental trajectories will be quite differ- to have any influence on a developing person it ent if one is motivated to succeed and persists has to be experienced within one or more of the in tasks and the other is not motivated and does microsystems in which that person is situated. not persist. Although Bronfenbrenner, even in his earliest writings, was never a theorist simply dealing Time with contextual influences on development, as The final element of the PPCT model is time. many authors imply, he, in his later writings, As befits any theory of human development, provided a clearer view of individuals’ roles time plays a crucial role in the theory. In the in changing their context. The change can same way that both context and individual fac- be relatively passive (a person changes the tors are divided into subfactors, Bronfenbrenner environment simply by being in it, to the extent and Morris (1998) wrote about time as consti- that others react to him or her differently on tuting micro-time (what is occurring during the the basis of demand characteristics such as age, course of some specific activity or interaction), gender, and skin color), to more active (the ways meso-time (the extent to which activities and in which the person changes the environment interactions occur with some consistency in the are linked to his or her resource characteristics, developing person’s environment), and macro- whether physical, mental, or emotional), to most time (the chronosystem, to use the term that active (the extent to which the person changes Bronfenbrenner had earlier used). The latter term the environment is linked, in part, to the desire refers to the fact that developmental processes and drive to do so, or force characteristics). are likely to vary according to the specific histor- ical events that are occurring as the developing individuals are at one age or another. This latter Context sense is captured best in research such as that The environment, or context, involves four inter- of Elder (1974, 1996), who was able to demon- related systems. The first is any environment, strate significant variation in the developmental such as home, school, or peer group, in which trajectories of people from two cohorts, born the developing person spends a good deal of in the same geographical area but just 10 years time engaging in activities and interactions (i.e., apart. Each cohort experienced the effects of the the microsystem). As people spend time in more Great Depression in the United States (and sub- than one microsystem, Bronfenbrenner wrote sequent historical events) completely differently about the interrelations among them (i.e., the because they experienced each of these events mesosystem). There are also important contexts at a different point in the life course. in which the individuals whose development Time, as well as timing, is equally important is being considered are not actually situated because all aspects of the PPCT model can be but which have important indirect influences thought of in terms of relative constancy and on their development (i.e., the exosystem). An change. This is true whether one is thinking example of an exosystem effect is the following: about developing individuals themselves, the A mother has been particularly stressed at work types of activities and interactions in which and, as a result, behaves more irritably than usual they engage, or the various microsystems in with her son when she gets home. The mother’s which they are situated. Moreover, cultures also work is an exosystem for the child because he are continually undergoing change, although at spends no time there, but it has an indirect influ- some periods of historical time the rates of ence on him. Finally, Bronfenbrenner defined change are much faster than at others. the macrosystem as a context encompassing any Research based on the mature version group (‘‘culture, subculture, or other extended of Bronfenbrenner’s theory should therefore social structure’’) whose members share value or include each of the elements of the PPCT model belief systems, ‘‘resources, hazards, lifestyles, if it is to qualify as a complete test of the model. opportunity structures, life course options and Partial tests are, of course, possible, but should patterns of social interchange’’ (1993, p. 25). be identified as such. It is impossible, however, The macrosystem envelops the remaining sys- to treat a study as being based on the mature ver- tems, influencing (and being influenced by) all sion if its design does not involve a focus on the of them. A particular cultural group may share a critical element of Process (proximal processes) 202 Journal of Family Theory & Review or an assessment (observation or from interviews METHOD or questionnaires) of the types of typical activ- To find studies for evaluation, we conducted an ities and interactions believed to be relevant for extensive search of PsycINFO, Education Index, the study participants’ developmental outcomes EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Google, and Google of interest. To understand how Person charac- Scholar, using the following keyword search: teristics influence those proximal processes, the Bronfenbrenner, PPCT, ecological theory, eco- minimum requirement would be to assess the logical systems theory, bioecological theory, and ways in which a demand characteristic, such as process–person–context–time. Search options age, appearance, or gender, altered these activi- provided by some publishing houses (Sage, for ties and interactions, although a richer design example) were also used to search within spe- would examine the ways in which relevant cific journals. We do not claim to have located resource or force characteristics of the study par- all articles published in English between 2001 ticipants influenced the ways in which they acted and March 2008 in which the researchers stated and interacted. Context, too, influences proximal that their study was based on Bronfenbrenner’s processes, and the minimum requirement would theory; our search was extensive but not exhaus- be to evaluate the differential influence of two tive. Nonetheless, we were able to locate 25 microsystems (home and school, for example) or published studies that met our criteria. two macrosystems (middle- and working-class families or adolescents from different cultural groups) on the activities and interactions of inter- RESULTS, OR USES AND MISUSES OF THE est. Finally, regarding Time, the study should be THEORY longitudinal (to evaluate the influence of proxi- mal processes, as they are mutually influenced by Appropriate Uses of Bronfenbrenner’s Theory person characteristics and context, on the devel- Of these 25 studies, we found only 4 in which the opmental outcomes of interest) and should take authors based their research on the mature form into account what is occurring, in the group being of Bronfenbrenner’s theory, that is, by using at studied, at the current point of historical time. least three of the PPCT concepts, including prox- The focus of this paper is thus to evaluate imal processes. Adamsons, O’Brien, and Pasley the extent to which contemporary scholars are (2007), Campbell, Pungelo, and Miller-Johnson appropriately using Bronfenbrenner’s theory in (2002), Riggins-Caspers, Cadoret, Knutson, and its developed form in the design of their studies. Langbehn (2003), and Tudge, Odero, Hogan, Obviously, papers written prior to the late 1990s and Etz (2003) presented the theory in its mature could not be expected to discuss the theory in form and tested theoretical assumptions through its mature form, and we therefore restricted our appropriate research designs. search to those papers published from 2001 to Adamsons and her colleagues (2007) exam- March 2008 whose authors stated explicitly that ined the differences in father involvement and their research was based on Bronfenbrenner’s quality of father-child interactions between bio- theory. We excluded from consideration those logical father and stepfathers and did so by papers in which authors specified that they explicitly linking them to the four elements of the were using an earlier version of his theory or PPCT model. The secondary data analyses and that they were using a limited set of concepts cross-sectional nature of the study placed certain from the theory. These are perfectly acceptable limitations on the authors’ ability to implement approaches, and these authors in no way imply fully the PPCT model, and we disagree with the that they are basing their research on the mature authors’ position that time was incorporated by or complete version of the theory. Many other simply considering how long the stepfather had authors, however, stated explicitly that their been a part of the family. This variable does not work was based on Bronfenbrenner’s theory represent the element of time as Bronfenbrenner but in fact only considered an earlier version conceived it. In the case of this study, it would of the theory or treated the theory as though have been sufficient to acknowledge that time it only related to person-environment relations. was not measured because of the constraints of These papers, we believe, are unhelpful to the the research design and treat the lacuna as one field, implying either that the theory has not of the limitations of the study. developed since the 1970s or 1980s or that it can Fathers were considered as the developing be reduced to something far more limited. persons of interest because father involvement Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 203 and quality of father interactions with his child behavior, which was found to be influenced both were the outcomes being considered. Thus, the by childhood predispositions and by the level of person element was assessed through fathers’ their adoptive parents’ psychopathology. position in the family (biological or stepfather), In their discussion and conclusion, Riggins- age, race, parenting beliefs, and fathers’ levels of Caspers et al. (2003) evaluated their results marital satisfaction. The authors also included through the lens of bioecological theory, child gender as a person characteristic of an addressing the limitations of their study in a the- individual (child) with whom the developing oretically appropriate way (particularly that their person of interest (the father) was interacting. approach to time had relied on a retrospective, Although Adamsons et al. (2007) state that rather than prospective longitudinal, approach) the cross-sectional nature of the analyses did and stating directions for future research from not permit the examination of development the theoretical as well as empirical standpoint. as process and that their conceptualization of Beside the inferred nature of the context vari- process may differ from that of Bronfenbrenner, able, this study serves as a good example of an we find their assessment of quality of father- child engagement a reasonable representation of empirical test of the PPCT model. proximal process. The final two papers that we thought not Overall, we felt that Adamsons and her only well described and used Bronfenbren- colleagues (2007) adequately used the PPCT ner’s theory in its mature form but also were model in their research: The authors discussed able to include time in their use of the PPCT all components of the theory, acknowledged model were those of Campbell et al. (2002) the minor differences in conceptualization and Tudge and his colleagues (2003). Campbell or absence of certain elements, considered and her colleagues stated that they were basing their findings from Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical their research ‘‘on Bronfenbrenner’s (Bronfen- perspective, and provided directions for future brenner & Morris, 1998) ecological model in research that would better and more fully which interactions among personal character- incorporate bioecological theory in examining istics, proximal processes, contexts, and time fathers’ involvement with their children. combine to affect developmental outcomes’’ We also felt that the paper by Riggins-Caspers (p. 278). The measures of proximal processes and her colleagues (2003) outlined nicely the key that the authors used included early educational propositions of bioecological theory, drawing on interventions and the quality of family function- Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994). The study’s ing, as assessed by the HOME scale, when the purpose was to assess biology-environment children were young. Early achievement scores interactions through psychopathological con- were used as the main measure of person char- tributions of biological and adoptive parents acteristics. All children were from low-income and their adopted adolescents’ problem behav- African American families, which meant that it ior as a result of harsh discipline. The authors was impossible to assess the ways in which explained clearly the links between variables proximal processes differentially operated in in their study and all of the elements of Bron- two different macrosystems (see Bronfenbren- fenbrenner’s model. Proximal processes were ner, 1993), but the study, being longitudinal, assessed through the children’s adoptive parents’ could examine the interrelated impact of each harsh disciplinary techniques, which were found to be influenced both by person characteristics process, person, and context over time. Campbell of the children (their predisposition to problem and her colleagues returned in the paper’s con- behavior, as assessed by their biological parents’ clusion to the theory to point out that the model degree of psychopathology) and by the environ- was supported in assessing the development of ment (low or moderate level of adoptive parents’ adolescents’ feelings of self-worth. psychopathology). Unfortunately, this measure In the research conducted by Tudge and of environment was inferred from person-related his colleagues (2003), proximal processes were characteristics (drug and alcohol problems, legal assessed via children’s typically occurring inter- difficulties, depression, anxiety, and other psy- actions with objects, materials, and people chological problem) and not assessed directly within their most common microsystems (home as the theory requires. The outcome of interest and child-care setting). This was accomplished was the children’s current expression of problem by observing each child in the study for a 204 Journal of Family Theory & Review total of 20 hours. Person characteristics, specif- on one or more of the contextual ‘‘systems’’ ically developmentally instigative characteris- on which Bronfenbrenner concentrated in his tics, were also assessed in parents and children. 1979 book. Many of the other authors in this For example, the authors measured parents’ group (Atzaba-Poria, Pike, & Deater-Deckard, beliefs about childrearing and the children’s 2004; Drake, Jonson-Reid, & Sapokaite, 2006; motivation in choosing and sustaining activi- Kulik & Rayyan, 2006; Schwebel & Brezausek, ties. As for context, two macrosystems were 2007) focused primarily on contextual influences assessed—middle-class and working-class fam- on development, although they also discussed ilies from a single city in the southeastern United individual influences. Two sets of authors States. Finally, time was included in the study as (Atzaba-Poria & Pike, 2008; Stewart, 2007) took the assessed child outcomes at three ages—the seriously the interactional nature of the theory as observations of everyday activities and interac- it existed in the late 1970s; an ecological position tions were conducted when the children were is one that focuses on individual-environment 3 years old, and their teachers’ perception of interrelations. Stewart sought to ‘‘determine the their academic competence was assessed at the ecological factors (i.e., characteristics of the end of the children’s first and second years of person and of the environment) that contribute to school. This study, we felt, did a good job of the academic achievement of African American applying Bronfenbrenner’s theory in a system- adolescents’’ (p. 17), and Atzaba-Poria and Pike atic fashion. proposed that ‘‘parents’ behavior is influenced by child characteristics ... the proximal social context ... and the more distal social context’’ Misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s Theory (p. 18). In none of these cases, however, was The remaining papers fall into three main groups. there any mention of proximal processes, let In each group, authors stated explicitly that alone an attempt to measure them. they were using ‘‘Bronfenbrenner’s theory,’’ The second group consists of seven papers ‘‘Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model,’’ or a (Chenoweth & Galliher, 2004; Dalla, 2004; synonym. Those in the first group, however, Grogan-Kaylor & Otis, 2007; Johnston, Swim, used primarily Bronfenbrenner’s writings from Saltsman, Deater-Deckard, & Petrill, 2007; the 1970s, those in the second group included Jones, Forehand, Brody, & Amistead, 2003; references from the 1980s, and the final group Singal, 2006; Voydanoff, 2005) whose authors drew explicitly on Bronfenbrenner’s work from relied primarily on Bronfenbrenner’s ideas the 1990s but without paying attention to what from the 1980s. Each set of authors focused lies at the heart of the mature theory—proximal their main attention on contextual factors, processes. Even in the 1970s the theory was although they all noted the importance of not about contextual influences on development individual factors. Chenoweth and Galliher but on context-individual interactions, and from stated that ecological systems theory served as 1994 the theory was quite explicit that proximal the theoretical basis for their study of students’ processes were the ‘‘engines of development’’ college aspirations, but cited two sources and that they were modified by both the context (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1986), neither of which and the individuals engaged in those proximal explicitly referred to ecological systems theory. processes. As noted above, authors wishing Furthermore, they stated: ‘‘Bronfenbrenner to test an earlier version of the theory may, proposed that human development should be of course, do so, but in that case they must studied using a contextual approach, taking make explicit their intention. Failure to do that, into account the many possible influences and ignoring the major changes to the theory, of the environment upon a child’’ (p. 1), constitutes a misrepresentation of the theory. treating the theory as one simply dealing with In the first group, the authors treated the contextual influences. Similarly, Singal wrote theory as though it either dealt solely with about adopting Bronfenbrenner’s ‘‘eco-systemic contextual influences on development or on framework’’ but referred only to ideas from contextual and individual characteristics, but 1979 and the 1992 reprint of the 1989 chapter. without any attention paid to proximal processes. Moreover, she conceptualized the framework in Three of the papers (those by Weigel, Martin, the following terms: ‘‘Providing an imagery of & Bennett, 2005; Ying & Han, 2006; Yu & the nested set of Russian dolls, Bronfenbrenner Stiffman, 2007) focused attention exclusively argues that various immediate and distant forces Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 205 affect an individual’s development’’ (p. 240). evidence, at least from this paper, that Johnston Not surprisingly, given this conceptualization and her colleagues considered processes in the of the theory, Singal placed exclusive attention way that Bronfenbrenner, in the mature form of to the various contextual systems. Voydanoff the theory, stipulated, although they had data also wrote that she was using Bronfenbrenner’s that could have been used for this purpose. For ‘‘ecological systems approach as a framework’’ example, they were interested in ‘‘the extent to (p. 667), citing Bronfenbrenner (1989), but which mothers engaged in racial, ethnic, and although her data on work-family linkages could cultural socialization practices; and the relation have been analyzed in the type of systemic between racial, ethnic, and cultural socialization way that Bronfenbrenner was advocating at and child adjustment’’ (p. 398). Their measure that time, Voydanoff treated the theory as of cultural socialization practices asked moth- though it dealt exclusively with microsystem ers the extent to which they engaged in various and mesosystem influences on development. practices, with possible responses ranging from Nonetheless, none of these studies involved the several times a week to never. Furthermore, the type of systemic person-process-context analysis authors also took into account both the adopted for which Bronfenbrenner had argued from 1983 children’s age and their country of birth (Korea to 1989, let alone any consideration of the mature or China). In principle, therefore, it would have form of the theory. been possible to analyze these data using the Jones et al. (2003) argued that they were PPCT model. ‘‘extrapolating’’ from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, Finally, a further five sets of authors (Butera, 1989) position that ‘‘multiple environments . . . 2005; Hossain, 2001; Jordan, 2005; McDougall, in which families live cannot be viewed as mutu- DeWit, King, Miller, & Killip, 2004; Warren, ally exclusive but rather as ‘systems’ that jointly 2005) at least cited work from the 1990s in influence familial behavior’’ (p. 437). To be fair, which the mature form of the theory could be Jones and her colleagues included in their study found. Unfortunately, this did not prevent the of parental monitoring both ‘‘structural vari- authors of three of these papers from treating ables’’ (e.g., characteristics of the family and the the theory as though it were simply a theory of neighborhood) and ‘‘psychological variables’’ contextual influences on developing individuals. (maternal depression, child problem behavior, For example, Jordan stated that she was using and coparenting conflict) that may influence ecological systems theory to study media use in parental monitoring. They failed, however, to the home and school. She wrote, however; ‘‘The acknowledge or examine the person-context research is framed by Bronfenbrenner and Mor- interactional aspects of the 1970s and 1980s ris’s (1998) conceptualization that children grow versions of Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Grogan- up in a series of nested environments’’ (p. 525). Kaylor and Otis (2007) did better in this regard, In his study of young children’s television although they relied on the 1979 book and one viewing, Warren wrote explicitly about trying paper from the 1980s, as did Dalla (2004), who to ‘‘test Bronfenbrenner’s theory’’ (p. 850) by relied on the 1989 chapter. In both papers devel- establishing a ‘‘hypothesized set of relation- opment was assumed to be a joint function of the ships [that] closely parallels Bronfenbrenner’s person and the environment, and person char- (1979, 2001) ecological theory of child devel- acteristics were included as an important com- opment’’ (p. 849). Hossain studied the division ponent of development. Dalla also mentioned of household labor and household functioning components of the chronosystem, building on among Navajo families not living on reserva- Bronfenbrenner’s position that historical events tions and argued that the findings ‘‘lend support and situations impact development. Johnston to the use of the human ecology model in under- et al. (2007) cited Bronfenbrenner (1986) as well standing the cultural context of family roles and as the 1979 book and argued that they were using functioning (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998)’’ a person–process–context design, first discussed (pp. 258–259). It was thus surprising to see no in Bronfenbrenner and Crouter (1983). Unfor- mention of the PPCT model, and no attempt tunately, from the point of view of application to assess proximal processes, in either study. of the mature form of the theory, ‘‘process’’ at Instead, Warren focused solely on the four con- this time was not yet conceptualized as proximal textual systems of development, from micro to processes and had yet to be placed at the fore- macro, and Hossain also treated the theory as front of the theory. Moreover, there is little though it simply dealt with the impact of context, 206 Journal of Family Theory & Review stating; ‘‘Such environmental factors as one’s for their view that the contexts in which develop- family, cultural values, economic practices, and ing individuals exist have an influence on their historical events have important bearing on the development or that both contexts and the indi- making and shaping of gender roles in a partic- viduals themselves are influential. This truism ular cultural setting’’ (p. 256). hardly needs to be supported theoretically, and Butera (2005) also cited the 1998 paper but these authors could have contented themselves argued that this perspective ‘‘can be used to simply by citing Bronfenbrenner; they stated, examine the systems that surround children and however, that their research was based on or their families and deepen our understanding informed by his theory, or model, or framework. of the effects of contextual variables on Could it be the case that some scholars who collaboration and special education’’ (p. 107). state that they are drawing on his theory are Perhaps not surprisingly, the remaining citations unaware of the changes in Bronfenbrenner’s are almost exclusively to Bronfenbrenner’s 1979 theory? There is perhaps some justification for book. However, although Butera had nothing to researchers to be unaware of some book chapters say about the PPCT model, she acknowledged (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999) clearly the transactional nature of even the early because they may not be as easily accessible form of the theory and stated that ‘‘individual as articles published in peer-reviewed journals. characteristics make a considerable contribution Bronfenbrenner’s book (1979), in which he laid to outcomes’’ (p. 114). out an early version of his theory, may be so Finally, McDougall et al. (2004) also drew widely known as to overshadow completely on several of Bronfenbrenner’s papers from the some chapters that appeared later. One can 1990s to describe his bioecological perspec- hardly argue, however, that a chapter from the tive as one involving the interplay of person 1998 Handbook of Child Development is hard characteristics, contextual factors, and proxi- to find. There seems little justification to state mal processes. The authors found clear relations that one is relying on a theory whose own author between person characteristics (age, sex, and noted the extent to which it had changed (see academic achievement) and contextual factors Bronfenbrenner, 1989, 1999) and use material (including socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and only or primarily from the 1970s, as was the the school culture) but explicitly treated peer and case with the authors of no fewer than nine of student-teacher interactions as an aspect of their these papers. Worse, these authors treated the primary contextual factor (school culture) rather theory as though it was purely a theory about the than as proximal processes. McDougall and her various systems of context and their influences colleagues also ignored the fourth aspect of the on development, thereby missing the ecological PPCT model and, although they noted the prob- nature of the theory even in its earliest form. lem of conducting a purely cross-sectional study, Other scholars at least used a more up-to- did not describe this as a theoretical limitation. date version of the theory, from the 1980s, when Bronfenbrenner described the importance of process as something that linked person and DISCUSSION context. Even then, however, despite stating If, as we argued at the start of this paper, theory correctly that he termed his theory ‘‘ecological has an important role to play in developmental systems theory’’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1989), these and family studies, it is surely necessary to authors did not actually apply the systems part apply it correctly in research. Failure to do so of the theory in their research, despite writing means that it has not been tested appropriately; that their research was based on it. At best, data apparently supporting the theory do no such some of the authors acknowledged the fact that thing if the theory has been incorrectly described, one had to examine the interdependent roles of and, by the same token, a misrepresented theory the developing individuals and the contexts in is impervious to attack from nonsupportive data. which they were situated, though others from What can explain the fact that, of these 25 this second group continued to write as though papers published between 2001 and 2008, only 4 Bronfenbrenner was simply a theorist interested used the mature form of the theory and appeared in contextual influences on development. to have used it appropriately in their research? Furthermore, it was not necessarily the One possible reason is that some scholars merely case that citing the theory in its mature want to provide some general theoretical support form (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, 1995, 2001/2005; Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 207

Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner his own research as a way of showing how & Morris, 1998) was sufficient to ensure that he applied an appropriate method, preferring the theory was applied correctly in research. instead to comment on others’ research, none of Of the nine papers whose authors drew on which was designed specifically as a test of the Bronfenbrenner’s work from the 1990s, no theory. Moreover, if one considers designing a fewer than four still treated the theory as study that includes each and every aspect of the though it were primarily a theory of contextual theory, the research would indeed be a large and influences or of person-context interaction complex study. Consider, for example, all that without any consideration of the core feature he wrote about the different types of important of the theory—proximal processes. The authors person characteristics—demand, force, and of only four of these papers actually wrote about resource—as well as genetic attributes, the the process–person–context–time model and four different contextual systems, and the tried to apply it in their research. Innumerable three aspects of time (micro, meso, and authors include in their research some contextual macro), that include both collecting data variable (social class, for example) and an over time and situating the research into its individual characteristic, such as gender, and historical time. In addition, to study proximal may test for class-gender interactions in their processes, the most important part of the mature outcomes of interest. The research may well be theory, requires collecting data about regularly interesting, but it would not constitute a test of occurring interactions and activities with the Bronfenbrenner’s theory. important people, symbols, and objects in the We do not believe that researchers who base developing individuals’ lives. their work on a specific theory have to use the However, Bronfenbrenner never implied (let latest version of that theory or the theory in its alone stated outright) that every aspect had entirety. Researchers can obviously choose to to be included within any study. His position draw on specific concepts from the theory or on was rather straightforward: A study involving an older version. But in this case, surely this the PPCT model should focus on proximal more limited goal needs to be clearly specified processes, showing how they are influenced both or one can be accused of a lack of conceptual by characteristics of the developing individual or theoretical clarity. We do not think that and by the context in which they occur and researchers would be taken seriously if their showing how they are implicated in relevant research was said to be a test of Piaget’s theory developmental outcomes. The simplest research but took no account of any of his thinking application could examine, for example, the from the 1960s onward (when he moved from ways in which regularly occurring parent-child writing primarily about stages of development, interactions vary by an important characteristic or structural aspects, to a greater focus on of the child (gender would be the easiest, mechanisms of change). Similarly, one would though not necessarily the best) and by some not consider research to be an adequate test relevant aspect of the context (perhaps different of Bandura’s social cognitive theory if the ethnic/racial or social-class groups), with data scholar only cited Bandura’s early work on collected over at least two points in time, social learning theory. It is thus unfortunate, choosing some outcome viewed as being to say the least, that so many scholars (and the relevant to parent-child interaction. Methods reviewers of their scholarship) seem to be able to for collecting the parent-child interaction data treat Bronfenbrenner’s theory as though it was vary but would need to be adequate to simply a theory of microsystem or macrosystem assess interactional patterns that occur regularly. influences on development. Even so, a study of this type does not The final reason for scholars not treating seem so difficult to carry out effectively and seriously the mature form of Bronfenbrenner’s would serve as an adequate application of theory may be that it is viewed as simply too Bronfenbrenner’s theory. difficult to translate effectively into research. In conclusion, we think that scholars are doing Bronfenbrenner himself did not make these the field of human development and family connections as clear as he might have; in studies a disservice by stating that they are none of his writings did he provide a clear basing their research on a theoretical foundation methodological guide to help in the application but neither taking that theory seriously enough to of the theory. Nor did he write about any of consider its development nor attempting to use 208 Journal of Family Theory & Review methods that are theoretically relevant. Unlike of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643 – 1647). theories such as those of Piaget or Vygotsky, Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Bronfenbrenner’s theory is eminently accessible Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology to English-speaking scholars. To consider his through space and time: A future perspective. In P. ideas as simply relating to contextual influences Moen,G.H.Elder,Jr.,&K.Luscher¨ (Eds.), Exam- ining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology on development or even as a plea to examine of human development (pp. 619 – 647). Washing- person-environment interrelations is to do his ton, DC: American Psychological Association. theory a gross disservice. This theory has a great Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in devel- potential to allow us insight and understanding opmental perspective: Theoretical and opera- of the processes of human development and tional models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. deserves to be tested appropriately. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3 – 28). Washington, DC: American Psycho- REFERENCES logical Association. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). The bioecological theory Adamsons, K., O’Brien, M., & Pasley, K. (2007). of human development. In U. Bronfenbrenner An ecological approach to father involvement in (Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological biological and stepfather families. Fathering, 5, perspectives on human development (pp. 3 – 15). 129 – 147. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Original work Atzaba-Poria, N., & Pike, A. (2008). Correlates of published in 2001) parenting for mothers and fathers from English Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings and Indian backgrounds. Parenting Science and human: Bioecological perspectives on human Practice, 8, 17 – 40. development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi- Atzaba-Poria, N., Pike, A., & Deater-Deckard, K. cations. (2004). Do risk factors for problem behaviour Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature- act in a cumulative manner? An examination of nurture reconceptualized in developmental per- ethnic minority and majority children through spective: A biological model. Psychological an ecological perspective. Journal of Child Review, 101, 568 – 586. Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 707 – 718. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Crouter, A. C. (1983). Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental The evolution of environmental models in ecology of human development. American Psy- developmental research. In P. H. Mussen (Series chologist, 32, 513 – 531. Ed.) & W. Kessen (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human psychology, Vol. 1: History, theory, methods (4th development: Experiments in nature and design. ed., pp. 357 – 414). New York: Wiley. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Devel- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family opmental science in the 21st century: Emerging as a context for human development: Research questions, theoretical models, research designs perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 723 – 742. 115 – 125. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The in human development. Research paradigms: ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon Present and future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. &R.M.Lerner(Eds.),Handbook of child Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons in psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human context: Developmental processes (pp. 25 – 49). development (5th ed., pp. 993 – 1023). New York: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wiley. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child bioecological model of human development. In development (Vol. 6, pp. 187 – 249). Greenwich, W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of CT: JAI Press. child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive human development (6th ed., pp. 793 – 828). New development: Research models and fugitive York: Wiley. findings. In R. Wonziak & K. Fischer (Eds.), Butera, G. (2005). Collaboration in the context of Development in context: Acting and thinking in Appalachia: The case of Cassie. Journal of Special specific environments (pp. 3 – 44). Hillsdale, NJ: Education, 39, 106 – 116. Erlbaum. Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., & Miller-Johnson, S. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of (2002). The development of perceived scholastic human development. In T. Husen & T. N. competence and global self-worth in African Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia American adolescents from low-income families: Bronfenbrenner’s Theory 209

The roles of family factors, early educational International Journal of Disability, Development intervention, and academic experience. Journal and Education, 51, 287 – 313. of Adolescent Research, 17, 277 – 302. Richters, J. E. (1997). The Hubble hypothesis and Chenoweth, E., & Galliher, R.V. (2004). Factors the developmentalist’s dilemma. Development and influencing college aspirations or rural West Psychopathology, 9, 193 – 229. Virginia high school students. Journal of Research Riggins-Caspers, K. M., Cadoret, R. J., Knutson, J. in Rural Education, 19, 1 – 14. F., & Langbehn, D. (2003). Biology-environment Dalla, R. (2004). ’’I fell off [the mothering] track’’: interaction and evocative biology-environment Barriers to ‘‘effective mothering’’ among prosti- correlation: Contributions of harsh discipline and tuted women. Family Relations, 53, 190 – 200. parental psychopathology to problem adolescent Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M., & Sapokaite, L. behaviors. Behavior Genetics, 33, 205 – 220. (2006). Rereporting of child maltreatment: Does Schwebel, D. C. & Brezausek, C. M. (2007). The role participation in other public sector services of context in risk for pediatric injury. Influences moderate the likelihood of a second maltreatment from the home and child care environments. report? Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 1201 – 1226. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 105 – 130. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1974). Children of the Great Singal, N. (2006). An ecosystemic approach for Depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. understanding inclusive education: An Indian Elder, G. H., Jr. (1996). Human lives in changing case study. European Journal of Psychology of societies: Life course and developmental insights. Education, XXI, 239 – 252. In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, Jr., & E. J. Costello Stewart, E. B. (2007). Individual and school structural (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 31 – 62). New effects on African American high school students’ York: Cambridge University Press. academic achievement. High School Journal, 91, Goldhaber, D. E. (2000). Theories of human 16 – 34. development: Integrative perspectives. Mountain Tudge, J. R. H. (2008). The everyday lives of View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. young children: Culture, class, and childrearing Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Otis, M. D. (2007). The in diverse societies. New York: Cambridge predictors of parental use of corporal punishment. University Press. Family Relations, 56, 80 – 91. Tudge, J. R. H., Gray, J., & Hogan, D. M. (1997). Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Ecological perspectives in human development: paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin A comparison of Gibson and Bronfenbrenner. &Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Handbook of qualitative In J. Tudge, M. Shanahan, & J. Valsiner research (pp. 105 – 117). Thousand Oaks, CA: (Eds.), Comparisons in human development: Sage. Hossain, Z. (2001). Division of household labor Understanding time and context (pp. 72 – 105). and family functioning in off-reservation Navajo New York: Cambridge University Press. Indian families. Family Relations, 50, 255 – 261. Tudge, J. R. H., Odero, D. A., Hogan, D. M., & Johnston, K. E., Swim, J. K., Saltsman, B. M., Etz, K. E. (2003). Relations between the everyday Deater-Deckard, K., & Petrill, S. A. (2007). activities of preschoolers and their teachers’ Mothers’ racial, ethnic, and cultural, socialization perceptions of their competence in the first years of transracially adopted Asian children. Family of school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Relations, 56, 390 – 402. 18, 42 – 64. Jones, D. J., Forehand, R., Brody, G., & Armistead, L. Tudge, J. R. H., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. (2003). Parental monitoring in African American, Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, inter- single mother-headed families: An ecological personal, and individual approach to development. approach to the identification of predictors. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Edu- Behavior Modification, 27, 435 – 457. cational psychology: A century of contributions Jordan, A. B. (2005). Learning to use books and (pp. 207 – 228). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. television: An exploratory study in the ecological Voydanoff, P. (2005). Social integration, work-family perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, conflict and facilitation, and job and marital 523 – 538. quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, Kulik, L., & Rayyan, F. (2006). Relationships 666 – 679. between dual-earner spouses, strategies for coping Warren, R. (2005). Parental mediation of children’s with home-work demands and emotional well- television viewing in low-income families. Journal being: Jewish and Arab-Muslim women in Israel. of Communication, 55, 847 – 863. Community, Work and Family, 9, 457 – 477. Weigel, D. J., Martin, S. S., & Bennett, K. K. McDougall, J., DeWit, D. J., King, G., Miller, L. (2005). Ecological influences of the home and T., & Killip, S. (2004). High school-aged youths’ child-care center of preschool-age children’s lit- attitudes toward their peers with disabilities: The eracy development. Reading Research Quarterly, role of school and student interpersonal factors. 40, 204 – 233. 210 Journal of Family Theory & Review

Winegar, L. T. (1997). Developmental research and racial discrimination on depression and academic comparative perspectives: Applications to devel- achievement in Filipino and American adolescents. opmental science. In J. Tudge, M. Shanahan, & Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 4, J. Valsiner (Eds.), Comparisons in human devel- 19 – 35. opment: Understanding time and context (pp. 13 – Yu, M., & Stiffman, A. R. (2007). Culture and envi- 33). New York: Cambridge University Press. ronment as predictors of alcohol abuse/dependence Ying, Y. W., & Han, M. (2006). The effect symptoms in American Indian youths. Addictive of intergenerational conflict and school-based Behaviors, 32, 2253 – 2259.