ecological systems theory essay

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (Pros & Cons)

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory states that child development is influenced by a child’s interpersonal, social, and cultural settings.

In other words, the development of an individual is the result of the complete ‘ecology’ of the child (consisting of biological, interpersonal, social, and cultural factors ). 

The 5 Levels of  Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system presents an ecological perspective of human development that is made up of 5 levels, with each successive level being a superset of the one preceding it.

These levels can be conceptualized visually as a ring of 5 concentric circles expanding outwards  from the innermost (microsystem), to the outermost (chronosystem). 

1. The Microsystem

The microsystem is the system of influences in the most immediate proximity to the individual.

These include institutions such as the family, the school, religion, and groups such as the child’s immediate peer group.

2. The Mesosystem

The mesosystem is the sphere where the child’s microsystems interact with each other, and in turn, influence the child.

For instance, the school and the family are two microsystems.

When the child’s teachers at school interact with the parents in providing feedback (the child is a fast-learner, or the child has difficulty fitting in), this loops back into shaping the child’s personality. 

3. The Exosystem

The prefix ‘exo’ is related to external, and thus an exosystem relates to factors that are not directly related to the child, and yet have an effect on the child.

For instance, if one or both the parents have a job that requires frequently relocating to a different geography (such as serving in the armed forces), the child may have to frequently shift schools and make new friends.

This can have a major influence in shaping the child’s personality.

4. The Macrosystem

The macrosystem is the larger, overarching cultural, social, and political  context in which the child finds themselves embedded.

For instance, different societies have different cultural norms and values that children imbibe. A child growing up in a tribal community in sub-Saharan Africa is shaped by a different macrosystem than another child growing up in an urban Scandinavian town. 

5. The Chronosystem

‘Chronos’ means time in Greek, and the chronosystem relates to the set of changes that occur in a person’s life over a period of time.

These changes could be personal events, such as the divorce of one’s parents, the loss of a sibling or friend, or they could be external, such as wars, natural disasters, etc.

The chronosystem thus extends well beyond the childhood stage of development, and accounts for factors influencing human development throughout their life. 

Examples of Ecological Systems Theory in Practice

1. head start program.

The Head Start Program is a program run by the government of the United States that provides assistance relating to child health, nutrition, and education to low income families in the US.

The program was launched in 1965, and Urie Bronfenbrenner was a key advisor to the US government in designing the program (Fox, 2005).

Bronfenbrenner’s ideas on the ecology of human development were contrary to the popular opinion of the times that did not account for wider social and cultural influences on human development. 

The program today serves over 1 million underprivileged children and their families in the US, focusing on holistic, all-round development. Numerous studies have confirmed the tangible benefits to children of the Head Start program. 

A 2019 study for instance, found that children who attended Head Start programs ended with higher incomes as adults compared to those that did not (De Haan & Leuvin, 2019).

Another study reported that students that were part of the Head Start program had greater probabilities of completing school, and demonstrated higher college enrolment and college completion rates than those who were not part of the program (Bailey et. al, .2021).

2. Transforming Mental Health Practice

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model is applicable not just to children, but to adults as well.

For instance Rupert (2017) and Eriksson et. al. (2018) have reported how taking a holistic, ecological approach to tackling mental health issues among adults yields better outcomes than treating mental illnesses as if they arise in a vacuum. 

3. Working With Immigrants and Their Children

Immigration has been crucial to the continued economic growth of several first world countries  such as the USA, Canada. Australia, and the UK. 

However, immigration also brings with it challenges for both the immigrant and the host community as the new arrivals struggle to adjust to and integrate with their new surroundings. 

Paat (2013) has shown that using insights from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory helps social workers and community organizers better conceptualize the ecological context in which immigrants and their children are steeped.

It follows then, that they can design better programs and initiatives that can make the transition smoother, for both the immigrant and the host community.

Pros and Cons of Ecological Systems Theory

1. Holistic Rather Than Reductionist

Prior to Bronfenbrenner’s formulation, it was the norm in the scientific community to conduct scientific experiments by isolating the subject and drawing inferences from the behavior observed in setting.

The assumption was that what would be applicable to the subject in conditions of laboratory-induced isolation would also be applicable in other conditions. 

Bronfenbrenner however believed that while such a reductionist/isolationist laboratory  approach may work for niche fields such as molecular biology, it can not always be applied to the subject of human development. 

2. Wide Application

The ecological systems theory finds application across a number of fields – from classrooms, to immigrant support services, to helping underprivileged children.

EST can even be applied to the corporate world by, for instance, helping companies innovate through the use of the ecological systems theory.

Such an approach, as outlined by Costello & Donnellan (2011) views innovation in a business setting as an ecosystem with internal and external components, rather than in isolation. 

3. Provides Actionable Inputs

Unlike many other theories in the social sciences, the ecological systems theory provides credible actionable inputs that can translate to public policy action implemented for the betterment of society.

For instance, the recommendations of the theory have been used to design community support services in the US and elsewhere. 

1. Difficult to Test Empirically

While the application of the ecological systems theory in practice has yielded tangible positive outcomes, it is not always clear that such outcomes were, in fact, caused by the application of the ecological systems theory.

2. Vaguely Understood Systems

Several aspects of the theory such as the mesosystem and the chronosystem remain vaguely defined and understood.

For instance, the mechanism(s) through which  the components of the mesosystem such as the family, school, friends, etc. interact with each other to affect a child’s development are not clearly understood (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000).

Who is Urie Bronfenbrenner?

Ecological Systems Theory was devised in its present form by the Russia-born American psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner in 1974.

Prior to Bronfenbrenner’s formulation, it was widely believed that a child’s social and psychological development was affected primarily by biological factors.

What little social influence was accepted on child development was attributed to interpersonal, one-to-one interactions between the child and another individual, such as a parent or a stranger.

Bronfenbrenner gave a comprehensive model of child development that explained how the larger ecosystem affects child development in a two-way interaction.

Related Theories:

• The Sociocultural Theory of Education
• 31 Major Learning Theories in Education
• 5 Social Development Theories
• The Constructivist Learning Theory
• The 10 Best Teaching Strategies

Bailey, M.J.,  Sun, S., & Timpe, B. (2021). Prep school for poor kids: The long-run impacts of Head Start on human capital and economic self-sufficiency . American Economic Review . 111 (12), 3963–4001

Costello, G.J., & Donnellan, B. (2011, August) An Ecological Perspective on Innovation Management Conference: Making a World of Difference: Nation Building and the Role of Management Education

De Haan, M. & Leuvin, E. (2019). Head Start and the distribution of long-term education and labor market outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics . 38 (3), 727–765.

Eriksson, M., Ghazinour, M. & Hammarström, A. (2018) Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: What is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice?. Social Theory and Health 16, 414–433.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes . Psychological Bulletin , 126(2), 309.

Margalit, F. (2005) Urie Bronfenbremmer, 88, an authority on child development dies The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/nyregion/urie-bronfenbrenner-88-an-authority-on-child-development-dies.html  

Paat, Y. F. (2013). Working with immigrant children and their families: An application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory . Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23 (8), 954-966.

Rupert, A. (2017) A socio-ecological framework for mental health and well-being Advances in Mental Health 15(2), 105-107.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 10 Reasons you’re Perpetually Single
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 20 Montessori Toddler Bedrooms (Design Inspiration)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 21 Montessori Homeschool Setups
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory posits that an individual’s development is influenced by a series of interconnected environmental systems, ranging from the immediate surroundings (e.g., family) to broad societal structures (e.g., culture).

These systems include the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem, each representing different levels of environmental influences on an individual’s growth and behavior.

Key Takeaways

• The theory views child development as a complex system of relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment.
• Bronfenbrenner divided the environment into five systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem.
• The microsystem is the most influential level, encompassing the child’s immediate environment such as family and school.
• The theory has significant implications for educational practice and understanding diverse developmental contexts.

The Five Ecological Systems

Bronfenbrenner (1977) suggested that the child’s environment is a nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the next. He organized them in order of how much of an impact they have on a child.

He named these structures the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and the chronosystem.

Because the five systems are interrelated, the influence of one system on a child’s development depends on its relationship with the others.

1. The Microsystem

The microsystem is the first level of Bronfenbrenner’s theory and is the things that have direct contact with the child in their immediate environment.

It includes the child’s most immediate relationships and environments. For example, a child’s parents, siblings, classmates, teachers, and neighbors would be part of their microsystem.

Relationships in a microsystem are bi-directional, meaning other people can influence the child in their environment and change other people’s beliefs and actions. The interactions the child has with these people and environments directly impact development.

The child is not just a passive recipient but an active contributor in these bidirectional interactions.

Example: Supportive parents who read to their child and provide educational activities may positively influence cognitive and language skills. Or, children with friends who bully them at school might develop self-esteem issues. 

2. The Mesosystem

The mesosystem is where a person’s individual microsystems do not function independently but are interconnected and assert influence upon one another.

The mesosystem involves interactions between different microsystems in the child’s life. These interactions can have significant impacts on the child’s development.

Example: A child whose parents are actively involved in their school life, such as attending parent-teacher conferences and volunteering for school events, may perform better academically.

This is because the interaction between the family microsystem and the school microsystem (forming the mesosystem) creates a supportive environment for learning.

Another example could be the interaction between a child’s peer group and family. If a child’s friends value academic achievement, this attitude might influence the child’s behavior at home, leading to more time spent on homework and studying.

3. The Exosystem

The exosystem is a component of the ecological systems theory developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner in the 1970s.

It incorporates other formal and informal social structures such as local governments, friends of the family, and mass media.

While not directly interacting with the child, the exosystem still influences the microsystems. 

Example: A parent’s workplace policies can significantly affect a child’s development. If a company offers flexible working hours or work-from-home options, parents might have more time to spend with their children, positively impacting the child’s emotional development and family relationships.

Another example could be local government decisions. If a city council decides to close down a community center or library due to budget cuts, this could limit a child’s access to educational resources and after-school activities, potentially affecting their academic and social development.

4. The Macrosystem

The macrosystem focuses on how cultural elements affect a child’s development, consisting of cultural ideologies, attitudes, and social conditions that children are immersed in.

Beliefs about gender roles, individualism, family structures, and social issues establish norms and values that permeate a child’s microsystems. 

The macrosystem differs from the previous ecosystems as it does not refer to the specific environments of one developing child but the already established society and culture in which the child is developing.

Example: In a society that highly values individual achievement, children might be encouraged to be more competitive and self-reliant.

This could influence parenting styles in the microsystem, with parents focusing more on personal accomplishments and independence.

Conversely, in a culture that emphasizes collective harmony, children might be raised to prioritize group needs over individual desires.

This could manifest in the microsystem as parents encouraging more cooperative play and shared decision-making among siblings.

5. The Chronosystem

The fifth and final level of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is known as the chronosystem.

The chronosystem relates to shifts and transitions over the child’s lifetime. These environmental changes can be predicted, like starting school, or unpredicted, like parental divorce or changing schools when parents relocate for work, which may cause stress.

Aging itself interacts with shifting social expectations over the lifespan within the chronosystem.

How children respond to expected and unexpected life transitions depends on the support of their ecological systems.

Example: The introduction of widespread internet access and social media represents a significant chronosystem change for many children.

This technological shift has altered how children interact with peers, access information, and spend their leisure time, potentially affecting their social skills, cognitive development, and even sleep patterns.

Another example could be a major historical event like a global pandemic.

Children growing up during such a time might experience disruptions in their education (shift to online learning), changes in family dynamics (parents working from home), and altered social interactions (social distancing), all of which can have long-lasting effects on their development.

The Bioecological Model

It is important to note that Bronfenbrenner (1994) later revised his theory and instead named it the ‘Bioecological model’.

Bronfenbrenner became more concerned with the proximal development processes, meaning the enduring and persistent forms of interaction in the immediate environment.

His focus shifted from environmental influences to developmental processes individuals experience over time.

‘…development takes place through the process of progressively more complex reciprocal interactions between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment.’ ( Bronfenbrenner, 1995 ).

Bronfenbrenner also suggested that to understand the effect of these proximal processes on development, we have to focus on the person, context, and developmental outcome, as these processes vary and affect people differently.

While his original ecological systems theory emphasized the role of environmental systems, his later bioecological model focused more closely on micro-level interactions.

The bioecological shift highlighted reciprocal processes between the actively evolving individual and their immediate settings. This represented an evolution in Bronfenbrenner’s thinking toward a more dynamic developmental process view.

However, the bioecological model still acknowledged the broader environmental systems from his original theory as an important contextual influence on proximal processes.

The bioecological focus on evolving person-environment interactions built upon the foundation of his ecological systems theory while bringing developmental processes to the forefront.

Classroom Application

The Ecological Systems Theory has been used to link psychological and educational theory to early educational curriculums and practice. The developing child is at the center of the theory, and all that occurs within and between the five ecological systems is done to benefit the child in the classroom.

• According to the theory, teachers and parents should maintain good communication with each other and work together to benefit the child and strengthen the development of the ecological systems in educational practice.
• Teachers should also understand the situations their students’ families may be experiencing, including social and economic factors that are part of the various systems.
• According to the theory, if parents and teachers have a good relationship, this should positively shape the child’s development.
• Likewise, the child must be active in their learning, both academically and socially. They must collaborate with their peers and participate in meaningful learning experiences to enable positive development.

There are lots of studies that have investigated the effects of the school environment on students. Below are some examples:

Lippard  et al. (2017) conducted a study to test Bronfenbrenner’s theory. They investigated the teacher-child relationships through teacher reports and classroom observations.

They found that these relationships were significantly related to children’s academic achievement and classroom behavior, suggesting that these relationships are important for children’s development and supports the Ecological Systems Theory.

Wilson et al. (2002) found that creating a positive school environment through a school ethos valuing diversity has a positive effect on students’ relationships within the school. Incorporating this kind of school ethos influences those within the developing child’s ecological systems.

Langford et al. (2014) found that whole-school approaches to the health curriculum can positively improve educational achievement and student well-being. Thus, the development of the students is being affected by the microsystems.

Critical Evaluation

Bronfenbrenner’s model quickly became very appealing and accepted as a useful framework for psychologists, sociologists, and teachers studying child development.

The ecological systems theory is thought to provide a holistic approach that includes all the systems children and their families are involved in, reflecting the dynamic nature of actual family relationships.

Paat (2013) considers how Bronfenbrenner’s theory is useful when it comes to the development of immigrant children. They suggest that immigrant children’s experiences in the various ecological systems are likely to be shaped by their cultural differences.

Understanding these children’s ecology can aid in strengthening social work service delivery for these children.

Limitations

A limitation of the Ecological Systems Theory is that there is limited research examining the mesosystems, mainly the interactions between neighborhoods and the family of the child. Therefore, the extent to which these systems can shape child development is unclear.

Another limitation of Bronfenbrenner’s theory is that it is difficult to empirically test the theory. The studies investigating the ecological systems may establish an effect, but they cannot establish whether the systems directly cause such effects.

Furthermore, this theory can lead to assumptions that those who do not have strong and positive ecological systems lack in development.

Whilst this may be true in some cases, many people can still develop into well-rounded individuals without positive influences from their ecological systems.

For instance, it is not true to say that all people who grow up in poverty-stricken areas of the world will develop negatively. Similarly, if a child’s teachers and parents do not get along, some children may not experience any negative effects if it does not concern them.

As a result, people should try to avoid making broad assumptions about individuals using this theory.

Evolution and Relevance of Bronfenbrenner’s Theory in the 21st Century

Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development has undergone significant evolution since its inception in the 1970s, raising questions about its current relevance and application.

Initially conceptualized as an ecological model focused primarily on contextual influences, it matured into a more sophisticated bioecological model emphasizing the critical role of proximal processes in development.

The mature version of the theory, often referred to as the bioecological model, places proximal processes at its core.

These processes are defined as “enduring forms of interaction in the immediate environment” and are considered the primary engines of development.

Central to the mature theory is the Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model . This model emphasizes the interplay between four key elements:

• Process: The core proximal processes driving development
• Person: Individual characteristics that influence these processes
• Context: The environmental systems in which development occurs
• Time: The temporal aspect of development, including both individual life course and historical time

Despite these advancements, the theory’s relevance in the 21st century has been a subject of debate. Kelly and Coughlan (2019) found significant links between Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and contemporary frameworks for youth mental health recovery.

Their research suggests that the components of mental health recovery are embedded in an “ecological context of influential relationships,” aligning with Bronfenbrenner’s emphasis on the importance of interconnected environmental systems.

However, the rapid technological advancements of the 21st century have raised questions about how well Bronfenbrenner’s theory accommodates these changes.

The theory’s relevance is further challenged by common misapplications in contemporary research.

Many scholars continue to apply outdated versions or misinterpret key concepts when claiming to use Bronfenbrenner’s theory, as pointed out by other scholars .

These misapplications often involve focusing solely on contextual influences without considering proximal processes, or failing to account for the time dimension in research designs.

Despite these challenges, Bronfenbrenner’s theory remains a valuable framework for understanding human development in the 21st century.

Its comprehensive nature allows for the examination of development in various contexts and across different life stages.

The theory’s emphasis on the interplay between individual characteristics, environmental influences, and temporal factors provides a nuanced approach to understanding the complexities of modern human development.

To maintain its relevance, researchers and practitioners must understand the theory’s evolution and apply it correctly.

This involves recognizing the centrality of proximal processes, considering the role of technology in developmental contexts, and designing studies that capture the dynamic nature of development over time.

By adapting the theory to include modern contexts while maintaining its core principles, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model can continue to provide valuable insights into human development in the 21st century and beyond.

Neo-ecological theory

Navarro & Tudge (2022) proposed the neo-ecological theory, an adaptation of the bioecological theory. Below are their main ideas for updating Bronfenbrenner’s theory to the technological age:

• Virtual microsystems should be added as a new type of microsystem to account for online interactions and activities. Virtual microsystems have unique features compared to physical microsystems, like availability, publicness, and asychnronicity.
• The macrosystem (cultural beliefs, values) is an important influence, as digital technology has enabled youth to participate more in creating youth culture and norms.
• Proximal processes, the engines of development, can now happen through complex interactions with both people and objects/symbols online. So, proximal processes in virtual microsystems need to be considered.

Background On Urie Bronfenbrenner

Urie Bronfenbrenner was born in Moscow, Russia, in 1917 and experienced turmoil in his home country as a child before immigrating to the United States at age 6.

Witnessing the difficulties faced by children during the unrest and rapid social change in Russia shaped his ideas about how environmental factors can influence child development.

Bronfenbrenner went on to earn a Ph.D. in developmental psychology from the University of Michigan in 1942.

At the time, most child psychology research involved lab experiments with children briefly interacting with strangers.

Bronfenbrenner criticized this approach as lacking ecological validity compared to real-world settings where children live and grow. For example, he cited Mary Ainsworth’s 1970 “Strange Situation” study , which observed infants with caregivers in a laboratory.

Bronfenbrenner argued that these unilateral lab studies failed to account for reciprocal influence between variables or the impact of broader environmental forces.

His work challenged the prevailing views by proposing that multiple aspects of a child’s life interact to influence development.

In the 1970s, drawing on foundations from theories by Vygotsky, Bandura, and others acknowledging environmental impact, Bronfenbrenner articulated his groundbreaking Ecological Systems Theory.

This framework mapped children’s development across layered environmental systems ranging from immediate settings like family to broad cultural values and historical context.

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective represented a major shift in developmental psychology by emphasizing the role of environmental systems and broader social structures in human development.

The theory sparked enduring influence across many fields, including psychology, education, and social policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main contribution of bronfenbrenner’s theory.

The Ecological Systems Theory has contributed to our understanding that multiple levels influence an individual’s development rather than just individual traits or characteristics.

Bronfenbrenner contributed to the understanding that parent-child relationships do not occur in a vacuum but are embedded in larger structures.

Ultimately, this theory has contributed to a more holistic understanding of human development, and has influenced fields such as psychology, sociology, and education.

What could happen if a child’s microsystem breaks down?

If a child experiences conflict or neglect within their family, or bullying or rejection by their peers, their microsystem may break down. This can lead to a range of negative outcomes, such as decreased academic achievement, social isolation, and mental health issues.

Additionally, if the microsystem is not providing the necessary support and resources for the child’s development, it can hinder their ability to thrive and reach their full potential.

How can the Ecological System’s Theory explain peer pressure?

The ecological systems theory explains peer pressure as a result of the microsystem (immediate environment) and mesosystem (connections between environments) levels.

Peers provide a sense of belonging and validation in the microsystem, and when they engage in certain behaviors or hold certain beliefs, they may exert pressure on the child to conform. The mesosystem can also influence peer pressure, as conflicting messages and expectations from different environments can create pressure to conform.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood . Child development, 45 (1), 1-5.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development . American psychologist, 32 (7), 513.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective .

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings . Social development, 9 (1), 115-125.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualised: A bio-ecological model . Psychological Review, 10 (4), 568–586.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.),  Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development  (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Hayes, N., O’Toole, L., & Halpenny, A. M. (2017). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for practitioners and students in early years education . Taylor & Francis.

Kelly, M., & Coughlan, B. (2019). A theory of youth mental health recovery from a parental perspective . Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 24 (2), 161-169.

Langford, R., Bonell, C. P., Jones, H. E., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S. M., Waters, E., Komro, A. A., Gibbs, L. F., Magnus, D. & Campbell, R. (2014). The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well‐being of students and their academic achievement . Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (4) .

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes . Psychological Bulletin, 126 (2), 309.

Lippard, C. N., La Paro, K. M., Rouse, H. L., & Crosby, D. A. (2018, February). A closer look at teacher–child relationships and classroom emotional context in preschool . In Child & Youth Care Forum 47 (1), 1-21.

Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory.  Current Psychology , 1-17.

Paat, Y. F. (2013). Working with immigrant children and their families: An application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory . Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23 (8), 954-966.

Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology.  Journal of family theory & review ,  5 (4), 243-258.

Rhodes, S. (2013).  Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory  [PDF]. Retrieved from http://uoit.blackboard.com

Tudge, J. R., 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.

Wilson, P., Atkinson, M., Hornby, G., Thompson, M., Cooper, M., Hooper, C. M., & Southall, A. (2002). Young minds in our schools-a guide for teachers and others working in schools . Year: YoungMinds (Jan 2004).

Further Information

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child Development, 45.

Ecological Systems Theory

Ecological Systems Theory (EST), also known as human ecology, is an ecological/ system framework developed in 1979 by Urie Bronfenbrenner (Harkonen, 2007). Harkonen notes that this theory was influenced by Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory and Lewin’s behaviorism theory. Bronfenbrenner’s research focused on the impact of social interaction on child development. Bronfenbrenner believed that a person’s development was influenced by everything in the surrounding environment and social interactions within it. EST emphasizes that children are shaped by their interaction with others and the context. The theory has four complex layers called systems, commonly used in research. At first, ecological theory was most used in psychological research; however, several studies have used it in other fields such as law, business, management, teaching and learning, and education.

Previous Studies

EST has been used in many different fields, however, commonly, it is used in health and psychology, especially in child development (e.g., Heather, 2016; Esolage, 2014; Matinello, 2020). For instance, Walker et al. (2019) used an EST framework to examine risk factors for overweight and obese children with disabilities. The study focused on how layers of an ecological system or environment can negatively affect children with special needs in terms of weight and obesity. They found that microsystem such as school, family home, and extracurricular activities can impact overall health through physical activities and food selectivity. Furthermore, the second layer, mesosystem (e.g., family dynamic and parental employment), also can lead to an increase in children’s weight because of a lack of money to buy nutritious food. In addition, children may be socially isolated and excluded in ways that cause stress, and their parents might use food to reinforce or comfort them. The third layer the study adopted was the macrosystem. For example, some cultures discriminate against children with disabilities so that they face more difficulty gaining access to health services.

In the field of language teaching, Mohammadabadi et al. (2019) researched factors influencing language teaching cognition. They used an ecological framework to explore the factors influencing language teachers at different levels. They adopted the four systems from Bronfenbrenner’s theory for studying the issue. This study found that the ecological systems affect language teaching.  For example, the microsystem included a direct influence on teachers’ immediate surroundings, such as facilities, emotional mood, teachers’ job satisfaction, and linguistic proficiency. The mesosystem defined interconnections between teachers’ collaboration and their prior learning experience. The exosystem included the teaching program and curriculum and teachers’ evaluation criteria, while the macrosystem addressed the government’s rules, culture, and religious beliefs. In other words, researchers use EST to guide the design of their studies and to interpret the results.

Model of EST

Concepts, Constructs, and Propositions

The four systems that Brofenbrenner proposed are constructed by roles, norm and rules (see Figure 1). The first system is the microsystem. The microsystem as the innermost system is defined as the most proximal setting in which a person is situated or where children directly interact face to face with others. This system includes the home and child-care (e.g., parents, teacher, and peers). The second is the mesosystem. The mesosystem is an interaction among two or more microsystems where children actively participate in a new setting; for instance, the relationship between the family and school teachers. The third is the exosystem. This system does not directly influence children, but it can affect the microsystem. The effect is indirect. However, it still may positively or negatively affect children’s development through the parent’s workplace, the neighborhood, and financial difficulties. The outermost system is the macrosystem. Like the exosystem, the macrosystem does not influence children directly; however, it can impact all the systems such as economic, social, and political systems. The influence of the macrosystem is reflected in how other systems, such as family, schools, and the neighborhood, function (Kitchen et al., 2019). These four systems construct the EST which considers their influences on child or human development.

Bronfenbrenner (cited in Harkonen, 2007) noted that those environments (contexts) could influence children’s development constructively or destructively. As the proposition, the system influences children or human development in many aspects, such as how they act and interact, their physical maturity, personal characteristics, health and growth, behavior, leadership skills, and others. At the end of the ecological system improvement phase, Bronfenbrenner also added time (the chronosystem) that focuses on socio-history or events associated with time (Schunk, 2016). In summary, the views of this ecological paradigm is that environment, social interaction, and time play essential roles in human development.

Using the Model

There are many possible ways to use the model as teachers and parents. For teaching purposes, teachers can use the model to create personalized learning experiences for students. The systems support teachers and school administrators to develop school environments that are suitable to students’ needs, characteristics, culture, and family background (Taylor & Gebre, 2016). Because the model focuses on the context (Schunk, 2016), teachers and school administration can use the model to increase students’ academic achievement and education attainment by involving parents and observing other contextual factors (e.g., students’ peers, extra-curricular activities, and neighbor) that may help or inhibit their learning.

Furthermore, the EST model can support parents to educate and guide their children. It can prompt parents to assist their children in choosing their friends and finding good neighborhoods and schools. Additionally, they can build close connections to teachers, so they know their children’ skills and abilities. By involving themselves in schools, parents can positively influence their children’s educational context (Hoover & Sandler, 1997).

For research purposes, researchers can test and modify or refine the EST proposition, or they can find additional ways to measure it. Researchers also can develop questionnaires from the components or concepts and construct of EST. Additionally, the four levels of EST can be used by researchers to frame qualitative, quantitative, and mixed research (Onwuegbuzie, et.al., 2013).

At first, EST was used in children’s development studies to describe their development in their early stages influenced by the person, social, and political systems. Currently, EST is broadly applied in many fields. Schools or educational institutions can use EST to improve students’ achievement and well-being. Interaction between the family, parents, teachers, community, and political system will determine students’ development outcomes.

Esolage, D. L. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and victimization.  Theory into Practice. 53 , 257–264.

Harkonen, U. (2007, October 17). The Bronfenbenner ecological system theory of human development. Scientific Articles of V International Conference PERSON.COLOR.NATURE.MUSIC , Daugavpils University, Latvia, 1 – 17.

Heather, M.F. (2016). An ecological approach to understanding delinquency of youth in foster care . Deviant Behavior, 37 (2), 139 – 150.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research , 67(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001003

Kitchen, J. A, (list all authors in reference list) (2019). Advancing the use of ecological system theory in college students research: The ecological system interview tool.  Journal of College Students Development, 60  (4), 381-400.

Martinello, E. (2020). Applying the ecological system theory to better understanding and prevent child sexual abuse.  Sexuality and Culture, 24 , 326-344

Mohammadabadi, A., Ketabi, S., & Nejadansari, D. (2019). Factor influencing language teaching cognition.  Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 9 (4), 657 – 680.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Collins, K.M.T., & Frels, R.K. (2013). Foreword. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7 (1), 2-8.

Schunk, D. H. (2016). Learning theory: An educational perspective .  Pearson.

Taylor, R. D., & Gebre, A. (2016). Teacher–student relationships and personalized learning: Implications of person and contextual variables. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. Twyman (Eds.), Handbook on personalized learning for states, districts, and schools (pp. 205–220). Temple University, Center on Innovations in Learning.

Walker, M., Nixon, S., Haines. J., & McPherson, A.C. (2019). Examining risk factors for overweight and obesity in children with disabilities: A commentary on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system framework. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 22 (5), 359 – 364.

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

Ecological Theory: Bronfenbrenner’s Five Systems

Categories Development , Theories

Ecological theory suggests that human development is influenced by several interrelated environmental systems. Introduced by psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner, ecological theory emphasizes the importance of understanding how various systems and environments interact with and influence people throughout life. 

Key Takeaways

• Ecological theory examines how individuals are shaped by their interactions with various environments.
• Bronfenbrenner’s model categorizes these environments into microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, macrosystems, and chronosystems.
• The theory highlights the importance of considering environmental context in understanding human development.
• While offering valuable insights, ecological theory also poses challenges, such as complexity and limitations in generalization.

Table of Contents

What Is Ecological Theory?

Bronfenfrenner’s ecological theory suggests that the interaction between and individual and their environment influences the developmental process. Bronfenbrenner organized these environmental factors into different systems or layers–each one interacting with each other as well as the individual.

In order to understand how humans develop throughout life, it is important to examine the multiple connections and influences of such systems. These influences include the immediate environment, including family and peers, as well as the much broader society and culture in which the individual and these other systems exist.

The Five Systems in Ecological Theory

Ecological theory describes five layered systems or levels that influence human behavior and development. These levels are often portrayed as a series of concentric circles. At the center of the system is the individual. The first layer is the one that they have the most immediate contact with, with each circle expanding outward and encompassing all of the inner layers.

The five levels of ecological theory are the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem.

1. Microsystem

The microsystem refers to the immediate environments where individuals directly interact, such as family, school, peer groups, and religious institutions. These settings have a profound impact on a person’s development, as they provide the most immediate and intimate social experiences. 

For example, within the family microsystem, children learn essential skills, values, and behaviors through interactions with parents, siblings, and caregivers. Similarly, the school microsystem shapes cognitive development, social skills, and peer relationships. 

These microsystemic interactions are crucial as they lay the foundation for future relationships and societal engagement.

2. Mesosystem

The mesosystem encompasses the interconnections between various microsystems in an individual’s life. It focuses on how different settings interact and influence each other, ultimately impacting the individual’s development. 

For instance, the relationship between family and school is a significant aspect of the mesosystem. A child’s experiences at home can affect their performance and behavior at school, and conversely, school experiences can influence family dynamics. 

Understanding these interactions is essential for comprehending the holistic nature of human development and the interconnectedness of different environments.

3. Exosystem

The exosystem comprises external settings that indirectly impact an individual’s development, even though they do not directly participate in those settings. Examples include the parents’ workplace, community services, and mass media. 

These environments may influence the individual through the experiences of people close to them or through policies and societal norms. 

For instance, a parent’s job stability or workplace stress can affect family dynamics and, subsequently, a child’s well-being. Similarly, community resources and media portrayals can influence individuals indirectly and influence societal perceptions and values.

4. Macrosystem

The macrosystem encompasses the broader cultural, societal, and political contexts that influence development. It includes cultural norms, economic systems, ideologies, and government policies. These elements shape the values, beliefs, and opportunities available to individuals within a society. 

For example, cultural attitudes toward education, gender roles, and socioeconomic inequality significantly impact individuals’ life paths and opportunities. Understanding the macrosystem is crucial for recognizing the broader structural forces that shape human development and behavior.

5. Chronosystem

The chronosystem incorporates the dimension of time into Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, emphasizing how individual and environmental factors change over time and influence development. This system recognizes the importance of historical events, life transitions, and personal experiences at different developmental stages. 

For example, changes in family structure, societal norms, and technological advancements can profoundly affect individuals’ development across the lifespan. By considering these temporal factors, ecological theory provides a dynamic framework for understanding human development throughout the entire lifespan.

History of Ecological Systems Theory

Urie Bronfenbrenner was a renowned developmental psychologist. He introduced the ecological systems theory to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding human development. 

Born in 1917 in Russia, Bronfenbrenner immigrated to the United States with his family during the Russian Revolution. His early experiences as an immigrant deeply influenced his perspective on human development, leading him to explore the complex interactions between individuals and their environments.

Bronfenbrenner’s interest in understanding how various environmental factors shape development stemmed from his observations as a psychologist working with children and families. He sought to move beyond traditional theories that focused solely on individual traits or familial influences and instead emphasized the importance of considering the broader ecological contexts in which individuals live.

Bronfenbrenner developed his ecological systems theory throughout the latter half of the 20th century, drawing from interdisciplinary research in psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biology. He published his seminal work, “The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design,” in 1979, where he presented his theory in detail.

Central to Bronfenbrenner’s theory is the notion that human development occurs within a series of nested environmental systems, each exerting varying degrees of influence on the individual.

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory has had a profound impact on the field of developmental psychology . It emphasizes the importance of considering the dynamic interplay between individuals and their environments. 

His work has influenced research, policy-making, and intervention strategies aimed at promoting healthy development across the lifespan. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s legacy continues to shape our understanding of human development and the complex ecological contexts in which it occurs.

Examples of Environmental Influences in Ecological Theory

To understand ecological theory, it can be helpful to take a closer look at some of the influences that people experience at each level:

Microsystem

• Family : Parenting styles , sibling relationships, household routines.
• School : Teacher-student interactions, peer relationships, classroom environment.
• Peer groups : Friendship dynamics, social support networks, peer pressure.
• Religious institutions : Belief systems, community engagement, moral teachings .
• Family-school : Parent-teacher communication, involvement in school activities.
• School-peer groups : Peer influence on academic performance, social dynamics within school settings.
• Family-religious institutions : Religious practices within the family, involvement in religious community activities.
• Peer groups-community services : Peer support for accessing community resources, involvement in community service projects.
• Parent’s workplace : Work hours, job stability, workplace culture.
• Community services : Access to healthcare, availability of recreational facilities, quality of public transportation.
• Mass media : Portrayal of societal norms, the influence of media on attitudes and behaviors.
• Extended family : Support from extended family members, family gatherings, and traditions.

Macrosystem

• Cultural norms : Attitudes toward education, gender roles, and family structure.
• Socioeconomic systems : Economic inequality, access to resources and opportunities.
• Political ideologies : Government healthcare, education, and social welfare policies.
• Historical context : Societal changes over time, impact of historical events on cultural values.

Chronosystem

• Family changes : Divorce, remarriage, birth of siblings.
• Socioeconomic transitions : Job loss, career advancement, changes in income level.
• Technological advancements : Impact of technology on communication patterns, learning opportunities, and social interactions.
• Historical events : Wars, economic recessions, civil rights movements.

These examples illustrate the diverse aspects within each system of ecological theory and highlight the interconnectedness of different environmental influences on human development.

How These Systems Interact

These systems within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory interact dynamically, influencing each other and ultimately shaping individual development. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate this interaction:

Microsystem-Mesosystem Interaction

Parental involvement in school activities can positively impact a child’s academic performance. When parents communicate with teachers (microsystem) and participate in school events (mesosystem), they reinforce the importance of education and create a supportive learning environment for the child.

Exosystem-Macrosystem Interaction

Government policies regarding parental leave can affect both family dynamics and workplace culture. When a country implements policies that support parental leave (macrosystem), it enables parents to spend more time with their children during critical developmental stages. 

This can lead to positive outcomes for children’s socioemotional well-being and family cohesion (exosystem). Additionally, such policies may contribute to broader societal changes by promoting gender equality in the workforce.

Practical Applications for Ecological Theory

Ecological theory offers valuable insights that have been applied across various fields, including psychology, education, social work, and public policy. Some key applications include:

Education and School Systems

• Understanding how different factors within and outside the classroom influence students’ academic achievement and socioemotional well-being.
• Designing interventions and programs to create supportive learning environments.
• Enhancing teacher-student relationships and peer dynamics.

Family Interventions and Counseling

• Assessing family dynamics and interactions using a holistic approach.
• Identifying areas for intervention to strengthen family functioning and relationships.
• Exploring connections between the family and other settings, such as school or community services.

Community Development and Social Services

• Addressing systemic barriers to opportunity and promoting community resilience.
• Designing culturally responsive interventions that meet the diverse needs of communities.
• Advocating for policies that promote social justice and equity.

Policy-Making and Advocacy

• Creating inclusive policies that support the well-being of all individuals and communities.
• Adapting policies to evolving societal needs and challenges.
• Recognizing the impact of institutional factors such as racism and economic inequality.

Research and Evaluation

• Studying the complex interactions between individuals and their environments.
• Identifying risk and protective factors that influence human development.
• Assessing interventions’ impact on multiple levels of the ecological hierarchy.

Ecological theory informs various fields, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding and promoting human development in many different contexts. Health practitioners, mental health professionals, policymakers, and researchers can utilize this framework collaboratively to create supportive environments and foster positive outcomes for all.

Strengths and Limitations of Ecological Theory

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is one way of thinking about human development . Like other theories, it has both strengths and shortcomings.

• Comprehensive approach : Ecological theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding human development by considering the complex interactions between individuals and their environments.
• Holistic approach : It emphasizes the importance of examining multiple levels of environmental influence, from immediate settings to broader societal contexts, to gain a holistic understanding of development.
• Applicability : The theory has practical applications across various fields, including education, social work, and policy-making, guiding interventions and programs aimed at promoting positive outcomes for individuals and communities.
• Emphasis on context : By highlighting the significance of environmental context, ecological theory acknowledges the diversity of human experiences and the impact of cultural, socioeconomic, and historical factors on development.

Limitations

• Complexity : The interconnected nature of ecological systems can make it challenging to disentangle the specific influences on individual development, leading to complexity in research and intervention efforts.
• Overlooks internal factors : Ecological theory primarily focuses on environmental influences on development, sometimes overlooking the role of individual agency and internal factors in shaping behavior and outcomes.
• Difficulty in generalization : Contextual factors vary widely across individuals and communities, making it difficult to generalize findings or interventions derived from ecological theory to different cultural or socioeconomic contexts.
• Potential for oversimplification : In attempting to capture the complexity of human development within a hierarchical framework, there is a risk of oversimplification, overlooking nuances and interconnections between systems.

While ecological theory offers valuable insights into the dynamic interplay between individuals and their environments, researchers and practitioners must be mindful of its limitations and consider them when applying the theory to real-world contexts.

Related reading:

• 8 Major Child Development Theories
• Vygotsky’s Theory of Child Development
• Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

Eriksson, M., Ghazinour, M. & Hammarström, A. Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: what is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice ? Soc Theory Health , 16, 414–433 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-018-0065-6

Hupp, S., & Jewell, J. (Eds.). (2019). The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development (1st ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171492

Özdoğru, A. (2011). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory . In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development . Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_940

Teater, B. (2021). Ecological systems theory . In K. W. Bolton, J. C. Hall, & P. Lehmann (Eds.), Theoretical Perspectives for Direct Social Work Practice (4th ed.). Springer Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826165565.0003

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory

• Reference work entry
• Cite this reference work entry

• Asil Ali Özdoğru 3  

5110 Accesses

1 Citations

54 Altmetric

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory is a comprehensive system theory of human development that includes elements from social, cultural, economical, and political contexts in the development of an individual.

Description

In his seminal book The Ecology of Human Development , Urie Bronfenbrenner [ 3 ] introduced a new theory of human development that emphasizes interactive processes between the person and the environment. His ecological systems theory proposed that individual’s development in any given area is primarily shaped by the interactions and relationships between the individual and different layers of surroundings. Activities, roles, and relationships of individuals in any setting constitute contexts of development. According to the ecological view, a thorough study of human development can best be achieved by the analysis of these different levels and contexts of person–environment interactions.

In ecological systems theory, nested layers of environment, like the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

American Psychological Association (APA). (2004). Early intervention can improve low-income children’s cognitive skills and academic achievement. Psychology Matters . Retrieved online on February 19, 2008, from http://www.psychologymatters.org/headstart.html

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1969). Motivational and social components in compensatory education programs: Suggested principles, practices, and research designs. In E. H. Grotberg (Ed.), Critical issues in research related to disadvantaged children (pp. 1–32). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Google Scholar  

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Office of Head Start, Administration for Children and Families. (2007). Head start program fact sheet . Retrieved online on February 23, 2008, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/about/fy2007.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Educational and Counseling Psychology, University at Albany, SUNY, 1400 Washington Ave, ED 233, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

Asil Ali Özdoğru

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Neurology, Learning and Behavior Center, 230 South 500 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, USA

Sam Goldstein Ph.D.

Department of Psychology MS 2C6, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

Jack A. Naglieri Ph.D. ( Professor of Psychology ) ( Professor of Psychology )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Özdoğru, A. (2011). Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_940

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_940

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-77579-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-79061-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

The Ecological Systems Theory

Save to my list

Remove from my list

The Ecological Systems Theory. (2016, Dec 05). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/the-ecological-systems-theory-essay

"The Ecological Systems Theory." StudyMoose , 5 Dec 2016, https://studymoose.com/the-ecological-systems-theory-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). The Ecological Systems Theory . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/the-ecological-systems-theory-essay [Accessed: 7 Sep. 2024]

"The Ecological Systems Theory." StudyMoose, Dec 05, 2016. Accessed September 7, 2024. https://studymoose.com/the-ecological-systems-theory-essay

"The Ecological Systems Theory," StudyMoose , 05-Dec-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/the-ecological-systems-theory-essay. [Accessed: 7-Sep-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). The Ecological Systems Theory . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/the-ecological-systems-theory-essay [Accessed: 7-Sep-2024]

• Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory of Child Development Pages: 3 (863 words)
• Ecological Systems Theory in The Glass Castle Book Pages: 5 (1484 words)
• Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Sociological Theory of Human Development Pages: 8 (2242 words)
• An Ecological Theory Applied to Aging Pages: 5 (1410 words)
• The ecological aspects In The Old Man and the Sea Pages: 8 (2143 words)
• Importance of the Ecological Footprint for Environment Pages: 4 (913 words)
• Ecological Chronotopes in Gloria Naylor’s Mama Day Pages: 9 (2612 words)
• Food Chains, Food Web, Ecological Pyramids Pages: 7 (1896 words)
• The Ecological Role of Pumas in Regulating Ecosystems. Pages: 5 (1408 words)
• Ecological Restoration Success: Kapiti Island and Zealandia Pages: 7 (1880 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

Ecological Systems Theory

The Ecological Systems Theory is a theoretical construct formulated by Urie Bronfenbrenner, which elucidates the process of human development by examining the interplay between individuals and their surroundings. The present study employs the Ecological Systems Theory framework to analyze a noteworthy occurrence in the author’s personal experience. The subject under consideration pertains to the experience of being a prominent child in a rural community during the formative years of one’s life. The occurrence significantly influenced the author’s existence, connections, cultural convictions, prospects, and other communal facets in numerous manners (Berger, 2021). This work aims to examine the event in question from the perspective of Ecological Systems Theory and to assess how theories of human development can enhance comprehension of self and empathy towards others.

Application of Ecological Systems Theory to the Writer’s Life

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory proposes that human development occurs through the interaction between individuals and their environment. The theory comprises five systems: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem.

Microsystem: Being a well-known kid in a small country town impacted the writer’s life in many ways. The writer’s family, peers, and school were all part of their microsystem. Their family was highly respected in the town, giving the writer a sense of belonging and identity (Berger, 2021). It has placed a greater onus on the writer to produce work that meets readers’ expectations. People the author knew and went to school with also left an impact. Their sense of responsibility and leadership was strengthened by the regard and admiration of their peers.

Mesosystem: The author’s life was deeply affected by microsystem interactions. The writer’s family and school collaborated, which helped her academically. The author’s family didn’t share the organization’s ideals. The author’s close connections also were of significance in this case. The author had a large group of peers because his family hosted many parties at which friends and associates could attend (Berger, 2021). Nevertheless, this circumstance challenged the writer to uphold a professional boundary between their personal and professional spheres.

The author’s existence was also impacted by the exosystem, a term denoting the environment in which an individual does not actively participate yet yields consequential outcomes. Because his father was a prominent local merchant, the author had advantages in life that other kids his age didn’t have. The writer felt additional strain to succeed and uphold the family name in the father’s eyes and uphold the family name.

Theories of Human Growth and Change

Sometimes I felt like being observed and examined like an animal in a dish. The interplay between the microsystems shaped my experience at the mesosystem level. For instance, my folks’ participation in neighbourhood activities introduced me to many new people and expanded my circle of friends. But that also meant that I had to balance various communities’ sometimes conflicting standards and practices.

My experience, at the exosystem level, was shaped by the larger social and cultural milieu in which it was embedded. Cultural views and values were profoundly ingrained in rural communities and significantly influenced interpersonal interactions. Due to my celebrity status, I received special care that sometimes made my friends jealous. At the macrosystem level, societal, and cultural standards and ideals shaped my experience. The tiny town’s emphasis on family and community bolstered my folks’ participation in local activities. However, this culture also placed a high value on conformity and adherence to traditional gender roles, sometimes creating tension in my family.

Upon engaging in introspection regarding my utilization of EST, I have acquired a more profound comprehension of how the diverse systems influenced my social maturation in my surroundings. I have developed a greater capacity for empathy towards individuals whose life experiences may diverge from mine. Through recognizing the interdependent connection between the individual and their surroundings, I have acquired an elevated comprehension of the importance of creating favourable environments that promote the best conditions for personal advancement and maturation.

Real-World Applications of Ecological Systems Theory

Recognizing that one’s experiences influence who one enables people to empathize with those who have had various upbringings. By putting oneself in another person’s shoes, one can better comprehend the difficulties others experience and work to alleviate them. For instance, a knowledgeable educator can use their understanding of EST to foster a more positive classroom climate. Teachers can create a positive learning environment for their students by considering the impact of the microsystem (home, school, and peers) and the mesosystem (the interaction between these systems) when planning lessons and activities.

The utilization of Ecological Systems Theory in the author’s encounters highlights the multifaceted ways in which an individual’s surroundings impact their growth and development. The theoretical framework underscores the significance of comprehending the interrelatedness among diverse systems and the ever-changing character of an individual’s surroundings. The Ecological Systems Theory provides a valuable framework for comprehending the various facets of an author’s social life, including their social status, networks, societal outlook, opportunities, and other related factors. Recognizing the influence of one’s surroundings on individual growth can aid in fostering compassion towards others..

Berger, K. S. (2021).  Invitation to the life span  (5th ed.). Bronx Community College and City University of New York.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Fundamental principles of care coordination, benchmark – create a workflow, a mixed methods research (mmr) to explore the effects of social disparities in healthcare and diabetes self-management education (dsme) access on type 2 diabetes mellitus (t2dm) treatment and self-management among african americans in south new jersey, ct and dw-mri, the shift from local to online multiplayer, examining the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in reducing hypertension among urban populations in new york city, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Ecological Systems Theory: The Person in the Center of the Circles

2007, Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 15427600701663023

Related Papers

manuel fedrighi

Bridget Hatfield

Human Nature

Benjamin Campbell

Annemargaret McKeon

Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research

Matthew Waugh

The bioecological theory of human development is a comprehensive theoretical and methodological model for the study of human development. Extending on earlier ecological models of development, the bioecological theory expounds on the biopsychological features of the “developing person” and on the capability for proximal processes to differentiate and actualize biological potential. The bioecological theory of human development has progressed through periodic revisions since its first comprehensive formulation in 1970 by one of the twentieth century’s most prominent developmental psychology theoretician, and Head Start co-founder, Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005). Bronfenbrenner envisioned that his bioecological theory be relevant for practice, science, and policy, by studying human development in real or realistic contexts. This entry in the Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research provides details of the different systems of ecology and its impact on the developing person.

MARK NEIL GALUT

Ecological systems theory: This theory looks at a child's development within the context of the system of relationships that form his or her environment. Bronfenbrenner's theory defines complex " layers " of environment, each having an effect on a child's development. This theory has recently been renamed " bioecological systems theory " to emphasize that a child's own biology is a primary environment fueling her development. The interaction between factors in the child's maturing biology, his immediate family/community environment, and the societal landscape fuels and steers his development. Changes or conflict in any one layer will ripple throughout other layers. To study a child's development then, we must look not only at the child and her immediate environment, but also at the interaction of the larger environment as well.

Handbook of child psychology

Robert Lickliter

Journal of Public Health Issues and Practices

Marcus Crawford

The Ecological Systems theory represents a convergence of biological, psychological, and social sciences. Through the study of the ecology of human development, social scientists seek to explain and understand the ways in which an individual interacts with the interrelated systems within that individual’s environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1983a). Bronfenbrenner (1994) sought to develop a theory of human development that would consider the influences of all of the systems that play a role in impacting the lived experiences of the individual no matter how remote the influence. Today, many of these concepts are commonplace in social work practice (micro-, meso-, and macrosystems, for instance); however, its foundation of empirical support is often less understood. This article will explore the historical development of the Ecological Systems theory through the works of Bronfenbrenner, will examine the empirical evidence supporting the theory, and will discuss the implications of the theory ...

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Mark Bennett

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Willis Overton

Research in Human Development

Carolyn Aldwin

Ecological Psychology,, Special Issue Part II., 30 (2) 174-194.

Ágnes Szokolszky

Ecological psychology

Andrew Schultz

Human Development

Hannah Monasterial

Carol Denis

Psychological bulletin

W.andrew Collins

Godwin Ashiabi

John Bock , Daniel Sellen

Robert Serpell

Heloiza Barbosa

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Carol Worthman

Ecological Psychology

Catherine Read

乳幼児発達臨床センター年報 Research and Clinical Center For Child Development Annual Report

Tonia L Meyers M.A., LMHC, NBCCH, BSHSM

Applied Evolutionary Psychology

David Bjorklund

Child Development

Developmental Psychobiology

Jean-louis Gariepy

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

What is Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory?

According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, children typically find themselves enmeshed in various ecosystems, from the most intimate home ecological system to the larger school system, and then to the most expansive system which includes society and culture. Each of these ecological systems inevitably interact with and influence each other in all aspects of the children’s lives.

The Microsystem

Interactions within the microsystem typically involve personal relationships with family members, classmates, teachers and caregivers. How these groups or individuals interact with the children will affect how they develop. More nurturing and supportive interactions and relationships will likely to foster a better environment for development.

For example, a little boy playing alone in a room. This little boy suddenly bursts out crying for no apparent reason. His mother, who is making lunch in the kitchen, hears the boy crying. She comes into the room, picks the little boy up, and carries him to the living room.

In the above example, the little boy initiated the interaction (crying), and his mother responded. In a way, the little boy influenced his mother’s behavior.

The Mesosystem

According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, if a child’s parents are actively involved in the friendships of their child, for example they invite their child’s friends over to their house from time to time and spend time with them, then the child’s development is affected positively through harmony and like-mindedness.

The Exosystem

The exosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model pertains to the linkages that may exist between two or more settings, one of which may not contain the developing children but affect them indirectly nonetheless.

Based on Bronfenbrenner’s findings, people and places that children may not directly interact with may still have an impact on their lives. Such places and people may include the parents’ workplaces, extended family members, and the neighborhood the children live in.

The Macrosystem

The chronosystem.

The chronosystem adds the useful dimension of time to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. It demonstrates the influence of both change and constancy in the children’s environments. The chronosystem may include a change in family structure, address, parents’ employment status, as well as immense society changes such as economic cycles and wars.

Application of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

41 responses.

Who are the authors of these articles? The articles and diagrams on this website are written/created by our team of writers. If you use the content on this website, you MUST provide appropriate credit. Please see below on how to cite the content on this website.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological System Theory Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Microsystem, macrosystem.

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory postulates that human development is the sum of factors of bioecological systems that are in an environment that one lives. The theory elucidates how bioecological systems influence human development throughout one’s lifespan, as it is extensively applicable in developmental psychology. Developmental psychology majorly entails the study of children’s behavior under strange circumstances and their interaction with adults. The theory views human development in the context of relationships that exist in bioecological systems of one’s environment. Bronfenbrenner (1994) argues that, human development occurs progressively through complex and reciprocal interactions between an individual and people, and objects and symbols that are in a given immediate environment (p.37). For interactions to be effective, they must be enduring and should occur in the immediate environment to form proximal processes that significantly influence human development. The proximal process exists in bioecological systems made of five spheres, namely microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. This essay describes four spheres of bioecological systems viz. microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem, and analyzes the past and present biopsychosocial factors that influence human development.

Microsystem is the closest bioecological environment that directly influences human development. Microsystem consists of structures such as family, childcare, neighborhood, school, and workplace, which mainly form part of immediate bioecological environment. In microsystem, an individual experience regular interactions through relationships, routine activities, and social roles that elicit progressive and sustained interactions, which bring about human development. According to Bronfenbrenner (1994), proximal processes operate optimally in microsystem because it forms an immediate environment that elicit and sustain human development (p.39). Under microsystem level, family is a dominant structure that does not only influence child development but also development in adults. At microsystem level, relationships have a reciprocal influence that shape development of individuals in a given social structure. For instance, parents have the capacity to influence beliefs, behavior, and values of a child, and vice versa. Bioecological systems theory states that, reciprocal interactions are strongest at microsystem level, and they have the greatest impact on human development due to the proximity of bioecological factors.

Family, as a social structure, significantly influenced my development during childhood because family members advised me on how to go about in life and become a successful person. For example, my mother loved me immensely in that she used to advise me regularly on how to have a decent discipline and work hard in my studies. Since I perceived that she loved me and wanted the best of me, I became determined not to let my mother down and thus I obeyed her advices to the letter. Then, I became an exceptionally courteous and industrious student in my class, which earned me warm reputation not only at school but also at home. Our relationship with my mother strengthened to the extent that, she would not deny me anything that I asked and on my part, I was so afraid to do anything that would disgrace her. Thus, reciprocal interaction between my mother and I significantly influenced my beliefs, values and behavior.

Present interaction with my spouse has tremendously influenced my social skills since I have learned that different individuals have diverse beliefs, values, and behaviors that complicate formation of relationships. When I first met my spouse, we differed in most aspects of social interest, but with time, through effective interactions, we managed to make numerous compromises to accommodate our differences. From experiences of disagreements, I learned that an individual is an entity with unique values, beliefs, and behavior that need tolerance for a healthy relationship that would stand the test to develop. Thus, my interaction with my spouse has shaped my perception of individuals as unique members of society who have different interests and, therefore, they need tolerance and forbearance from their interacting partners.

Mesosystem comprises interaction of various microsystems that are in bioecological environment where one lives. For instance, interaction of microsystem structures such as family, childcare, neighborhood, school and workplace, determines overall human development in the society. Mesosystem has increased societal forces that influence human development, unlike microsystem that only depends on individual interaction. Johnson (2008) argues that, interaction between family and school is particularly crucial in shaping the development of elementary school pupils because it provides a platform for teachers and parents to interact effectively in educating the pupils (p.3). Therefore, it implies that interactions of microsystems enhance concerted efforts of societal forces that are crucial in shaping human development. Thus, the more the interacting microsystems, the significant are the societal forces that influence an individual.

Family and school are social structures that significantly influenced my development during my childhood. Both structures influenced my behavior because they taught me to be a hardworking and discipline student so that I could achieve extraordinary dreams. For example, during my childhood, my mother and my teacher were friends, for they interacted more often. Since my mother wanted the best out of me, she constantly consulted the teacher to hear about my progress and in turn sought advices on how to enhance my academic performance. With time, I realized that my teacher cared so much like my mother in that she would always ensure that I have done my assignments and encouraged me to work hard lest I disgraced my mother. Hence, relationships between my mother and my teacher compelled me to work hard in my studies because I had no way of evading my duties because both school and family constantly monitored my progress.

Currently, interaction between my mother and my spouse has significantly shaped relationships in my family. Before I got married, my mother has been advising me on how to become a responsible father in a family so that when time comes I assume my responsibility well. Throughout my life, I have liked the way my mother treated us as a family, and I terribly longed to marry a spouse with qualities that resembled those of my mother. At first, we differed on many issues with my spouse, but when she interacted with my mother, she changed appreciably and we lived happily. Current interaction of my mother and my spouse has saved my family a fantastic deal of conflicts that usually did arise due to poor relationships.

Exosystem consists of interaction of diverse microsystems with at least one social structure that has indirect influence on an individual. At exosystem level, social structures that do not exist in microsystem sphere of an individual have indirect influence on human development, for they contribute to direct influences from immediate social structures. For example, interaction of family and parent’s workplace or school and neighborhood influence development of children in the society. Boyd, Bee, and Johnson (2008) argue that, although children in the family may not have direct contact with social structures workplace and neighborhood, they experience both negative and positive impacts from remote interactions that influence their own microsystem (p.52). Three microsystems, family, school and peer group, which form part of exosystem, indirectly affect development of children in the society.

During my childhood, my parents used to spent a considerable deal of time in their workplaces leaving us alone as children to stay alone. My father would come home rarely, for he worked in a different state from where we lived. Although my mother worked within the state where we lived, she would usually leave early in the morning and arrive late in the evening. Thus, their constant absence in the family made me take responsibility of taking care of my siblings as I learned that my parents were busy working hard in their respective workplaces so that they could provide for us. Therefore, interaction of our family with workplaces through my parents taught me to take responsibility in the family, which has made me develop leadership qualities.

Currently, since children are susceptible to various diseases, I have been taking my children to hospital for treatment and medical checkup quite often. Since my family interacts with hospital quite often, I have been able to learn a lot from Canadian health care system regarding prevention, treatment, and management of common infections that affect children and other family members, as well. If it were not for my children, I would not have bothered to learn health issues that affect families; thus, my children interaction with hospital gave me an insight of not only Canadian health care system but understanding of general human health.

Macrosystem is a complex of social structures such as microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem, which are under the influence of customs, norms, values, and laws that govern societal culture. According to Johnson (2008), macrosystem is the outermost sphere that has a cascading effect on development of children through interaction of various spheres, which consequently determines values, beliefs, norms, customs and laws that influence children’s microsystem (p.3). Biopsychosocial factors that exist in the community, society, and culture interact with diverse microsystems, mesosystems, and exosystems, thus forming a complex of macrosystem, which entirely determines human development in the society. It means that macrosystem is the blueprint of societal culture since it consists of diverse beliefs, values, norms, laws, and customs that dominate society and thus significantly influence human development.

During my childhood, Canadian customs and values significantly influenced me to adopt British and French culture since I attended a school, which had both British and French students. History shows that Canadian culture emanated from interaction of British and French culture; therefore, it enabled me to interact effectively with other students while at school. Since Canadian culture had elements of British and French culture, I developed interests in learning music and literature, which enabled me to adopt and develop their culture during my childhood. Hence, Canadian customs and values made me appreciate and learn other cultures at school for I perceived that we had common elements in our different cultures.

Currently, government policies have dictated my career development as a nurse. Government polices stipulate that I must undergo a recommendable nursing course for me to qualify and obtain practicing license. Furthermore, government polices do not only dictate that I must have certain qualification, but also expect that I must comply with nursing codes of ethics so that I can practice nursing. Hence, government policies have influenced my nursing course, schooling years and ultimately my career development. For one to qualify as a nurse, it depends on compliance with government policies and laws that govern nursing profession. In my case, since government regard nurses by paying them well, I opted to choose nursing as my career.

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory has taught me that human development occurs due to interplay of many factors in bioecological environment, which act in hierarchical levels of life; microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem. These hierarchical levels of systems have proximal processes that directly or indirectly affect human development in a complex society. As a nurse, I have learned that educating people on health issues requires one to target the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem spheres to have comprehensive impact on population.

Boyd, D., Bee, H., & Johnson, P. (2008). Lifespan Development, Third Canadian Edition. Canada: Pearson Education.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological Models of Human Development. In International Encyclopedia of Education , 3, 2nd. Ed. Oxford: Elsevier.

Reprinted in: Guavain, M., & Cole, M. (Eds.). (1993). Readings on the Development of Children (2nd Ed.) New York: Freeman.

Johnson, E. (2008). Ecological Systems and Complexity Theory: Toward an Alternative Model of Accountability in Education. An International Journal of Complexity and Education , 6, 1-10.

• Description and General Information About Stink Bugs
• The Pathogen Responsible for Urinary Tract Infection
• Urie Bronfenbrenner, a Psychological Researcher
• Children's Disposition to Bullying and Influential Factors
• The Cross-cultural Construct of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems
• Pygmy-Possum Burramys Parvus: The Effects of Climate Change
• Measurement of the Rate of Glycolysis Using Saccharomyces Cerevisae
• Recovery Plan For Manorina Melanotis — Black-Eared Miner
• Physiological Differences Between Males and Females
• Sex Determination in Amphibians
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 28). Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological System Theory. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bronfenbrenners-bioecological-system-theory/

"Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological System Theory." IvyPanda , 28 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/bronfenbrenners-bioecological-system-theory/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological System Theory'. 28 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological System Theory." March 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bronfenbrenners-bioecological-system-theory/.

1. IvyPanda . "Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological System Theory." March 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bronfenbrenners-bioecological-system-theory/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological System Theory." March 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bronfenbrenners-bioecological-system-theory/.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Social Ecology of Childhood and Early Life Adversity

Marcela lopez.

1 Pain/Stress Neurobiology Lab, Maternal & Child Health Research Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine

Monica O. Ruiz

2 Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA

Cynthia R. Rovnaghi

Grace k-y. tam, jitka hiscox.

3 Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford School of Engineering, Stanford, CA

Ian H. Gotlib

4 Department of Psychology, Stanford University School of Humanities & Sciences, Stanford, CA

Donald A. Barr

5 Stanford University Graduate School of Education, Stanford, CA

Victor G. Carrion

6 Department of Psychiatry (Child and Adolescent Psychiatry), Clinical & Translational Neurosciences Incubator, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA

Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand

Author Contributions:

An increasing prevalence of early childhood adversity has reached epidemic proportions, creating a public health crisis. Rather than focusing only on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) as the main lens for understanding early childhood experiences, detailed assessments of a child’s social ecology are required to assess ‘early life adversity’. These should also include the role of positive experiences, social relationships, and resilience-promoting factors. Comprehensive assessments of a child’s physical and social ecology not only require parent/caregiver surveys and clinical observations, but also include measurements of the child’s physiology using biomarkers. We identify cortisol as a stress biomarker and posit that hair cortisol concentrations represent a summative and chronological record of children’s exposure to adverse experiences and other contextual stressors. Future research should use a social ecological approach to investigate the robust interactions among adverse conditions, protective factors, genetic and epigenetic influences, environmental exposures, and social policy, within the context of a child’s developmental stages. These contribute to their physical health, psychiatric conditions, cognitive/executive, social, and psychological functions, lifestyle choices, and socioeconomic outcomes. Such studies must inform preventive measures, therapeutic interventions, advocacy efforts, social policy changes, and public awareness campaigns to address early life adversities and their enduring effects on human potential.

The social ecology of childhood includes positive and negative experiences, providing children with a socio-biological framework to meet age-specific developmental goals. Disruptions in this ecology, including frequent low-grade stressors (insecurity, inattention), marked variability (life changes), and trauma (abuse/neglect), can have deleterious effects on children’s health and wellbeing that may continue into adulthood ( 1 , 2 ). Researchers studying the lifelong effects of a child’s social ecology have focused primarily on major adverse events. Metrics like the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) questionnaire are administered in public health efforts to evaluate, understand, and prevent the health outcomes associated with childhood trauma( 3 , 4 ). Beyond the ACEs, however, preventable sources of early life stress may include food and housing insecurity, bullying, discrimination, inattentive parenting, or family separations. Clinicians do not routinely screen for trauma or the child’s social ecology, partly due to the lack of validated, objective metrics that can be assessed longitudinally.

We review the current discourse on the social ecology of early childhood in relation to child, adolescent, and adult health outcomes, summarize previous social ecology theories, and compare quantitative metrics. We argue that the practice of using ACEs as a method for understanding early life experiences paints a two-dimensional picture of the many interacting factors that comprise a growing child’s multi-dimensional environment. We review the underlying physiology of neuroendocrine stress responses and further contend that biomarkers, such as hair cortisol concentrations (HCC), may provide critical insights into the relations among early adversity, stress, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA)-axis regulation, and subsequent health outcomes.

Social Ecology of Childhood: A Historical Perspective

French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) first proposed that early childhood experiences establish adult behaviors. Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) from Moscow proposed the role of social and cultural factors in his theory of speech development, described in his book Thought and Language (1934). This work influenced many, including Jean Piaget (1896-1980), to propose theories of cognitive development in early childhood. Thomas and Znaniecki established a life-course perspective through their longitudinal studies (1918-1920) of Polish peasants in Europe and America( 5 ). Across the 20 th century( 6 – 10 ), early childhood experiences were associated with cognitive, behavioral, social, and psychological outcomes, including the influences of family size and socioeconomic status( 9 ), kindergarten enrollment( 11 , 12 ), and social class( 8 ).

These factors were integrated into the Ecological Systems Theory by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979), a Russian-American psychologist. Bronfenbrenner conceptualized that human development is shaped by complex relationships between individuals and their environments( 13 ). He argued that contemporary understanding of human development had failed to consider interactive, layered systems within a child’s environment( 14 ). These limitations led him to develop his Ecological Systems model.

Bronfenbrenner’s model depicts four systems – the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem – embedded in a chronosystem representing the era in which an individual grows up ( Figure 1 ). The microsystem comprises of interactions, roles and relationships within the home, child-care centers, or playgrounds( 13 ). The interplay among different microsystems is the mesosystem ( 13 ). The exosystem consists of extrinsic environments that affect the child indirectly (where the child is not an active participant), like the parents’ work environments, sibling’s school, or local government( 13 ). Lastly, the macrosystem encompasses greater societal characteristics, such as norms, customs, beliefs, and political structures. Bronfenbrenner’s model serves as a useful tool for exploring, categorizing, and interpreting different facets of children’s environments and experiences. It identifies a plethora of micro- and macro-level characteristics and encourages us to consider factors that impact a child’s life outside their insular family unit. This model presented a major breakthrough in theorizing the complicated structures of multicultural/multiethnic societies, and allowed us to organize complex, hierarchical systems within a Person, Process, Context, and Time (PPCT) framework( 15 ) to address issues at the core of programs and policies targeting children at the family and community level.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory presented a breakthrough model for theorizing how the complex, hierarchically organized systems in societies can interact with a child’s life, with a rich interplay between systems leading to the variable or opposing effects on early life adversity (ELA).

Other conceptual models have since been developed to assess the relationship between children’s broader social contexts and their health. In his 1992 book, The Strategies of Preventive Medicine , Geoffrey Rose stated that “the primary determinants of disease are mainly economic and social, and therefore its remedies must also be economic and social”( 16 ). His colleagues, Michael Marmot and Richard Wilkinson, as part of a World Health Organization initiative, expanded on his work to identify the social and economic characteristics which significantly influenced individuals’ well-being and life expectancy, and referred to these as the Social Determinants of Health( 17 ). They focused on poverty, drug addiction, working conditions, unemployment status, access to food, social support, and transportation infrastructure. Other determinants identified since then include social organization, race/ethnicity, gender, immigrant status, neighborhood and housing characteristics( 17 ).

The Life Course Theory emphasizes the timing and temporal context of lived experiences and how they can impact an individuals’ development and wellbeing( 18 ). In response to the “ notion that changing lives alter developmental trajectories ”( 18 ), Glen H. Elder proposed the four principles of Life Course Theory in 1998 as: ( 1 ) “ the life course of individuals is embedded in and shaped by historical times and places they experience over their lifetime ”; ( 2 ) “ the developmental impact of a succession of life transitions or events ”; ( 3 ) “ lives are lived independently, and social and historical influences are expressed through this network of shared relationships ”; and ( 4 ) “ individuals construct their own life course through the choices and actions they take within the opportunities and constraints of history and social circumstances ”( 18 ).

Epidemiologist Nancy Krieger proposed the concept of “embodiment” in 2005, which she defined as “ referring to how we literally incorporate biologically, the material and social world in which we live, from conception to death ,” arguing that human biology could not be understood without “ knowledge of history and individual and societal ways of living ”( 19 ). Through this lens, human interactions “become” human biology. Anthropologist Clarence Gravlee applied this concept to explain how and why racialized experiences and social constructs can negatively impact the health of racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S.( 20 ).

Despite widespread acceptance of these theoretical constructs, most studies focus solely on adversities within the home, testing their associations with physical( 21 – 24 ) and mental health outcomes( 25 ). Many authors use the term early life stress (ELS) to link adverse experiences in a child’s life with negative health outcomes( 1 , 2 , 26 – 28 ); other scholars refer to this phenomenon as “toxic stress”( 29 , 30 ), with no consensus on the nomenclature used to describe relationships between childhood adversity and potential health outcomes. While the ‘stress’ caused by adversity may explain many long-term consequences, ‘stress’ is not the operative factor for all observed outcomes( 1 , 26 ). Instead, we prefer early life adversity (ELA) as a holistic term, including family functions, socioeconomic factors, social supports, neighborhood characteristics, and other factors, more suited for linking early adversities with long-term outcomes. Several measures have been developed to study ELA, with most relying on adult retrospective recall.

Measures of Early Life Adversity

Several inventories, systematically reviewed by Vanaelst et al.( 31 ), assess the frequency of adverse childhood events( 31 ) ( Table 1 ). These were adapted from existing stress questionnaires and modified to inquire about major life events, chronic environmental strains (family, school, relationships, health), and other childhood-related stressors( 31 – 33 ). A cumulative risk approach was first proposed by Holmes and Rahe in their Social Readjustment Rating Scale ( 34 ), then applied to child adversities by Rutter( 35 ), and subsequently followed in other studies( 36 , 37 ). This approach rests on the scientific premise that challenges in one domain are easier to negotiate than challenges in multiple domains. It was simple to use, easy to understand, generated strong statistical associations to engage non-academic stakeholders( 38 ), accounted for the co-occurrence of childhood adversities( 39 ), and helped to identify people at highest risk for poor outcomes( 24 ).

Early Life Adversity Screening Tools

Against this backdrop, Vincent Felitti decided to focus on a specific set of ACEs. Felitti observed that dropouts from an adult obesity program had experienced adverse events as children or youth( 40 ). Detailed patient interviews revealed that childhood abuse was common and predated their obesity; thus, obesity was a self-protective solution to prior adverse experiences and not their primary problem. With Robert Anda and others, Felitti designed the ACEs Study, which surveyed 9,508 adults about ten adverse experiences( 32 , 41 – 43 ). Compared to individuals with no ACEs, persons exposed to four or more ACEs had 4- to 12-fold higher risks for drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, and suicide, 2- to 4-fold increased risks for smoking, poor health, multiple sexual partners, and sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.4- to 1.6-fold increased risks for physical inactivity and obesity( 38 , 40 ). ACEs also showed linear relations with heart disease, cancer, lung disease, fractures, liver disease, and multiple health outcomes.

By summing a fixed number of ACEs, Felitti and others created a quantitative method for estimating childhood adversities( 38 , 40 ). Their work stimulated research, social policy, and public health measures to combat the increasing prevalence of ACEs, and extended the movement for trauma-informed care into the pediatric age groups( 33 ).

Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences

The increasing prevalence of ACEs is a major public health concern( 31 , 32 , 44 , 45 ). In the ACEs study, 63.5% of adults recalled at least one ACE and 12% recalled 4 or more ACEs( 46 ). Subsequent studies, not limited to adult respondents, reported higher prevalence rates of 67%-98%( 47 – 49 ). Preschool children are at greatest risk for child abuse and neglect( 50 ), or domestic violence( 40 , 51 ), but cannot report these experiences due to limited behavioral or verbal expressions( 40 ). ACEs in early childhood remain underreported and underestimated( 30 , 39 , 50 , 52 ).

The U.S. Children’s Bureau reported that 678,000 children suffered abuse and neglect in 2018, with a crude prevalence rate of 9.2 per 1000 children. Of these, 60.8% were neglected, 10.7% physically abused, 7.0% sexually abused, and 15.5% suffered two or more types of abuse( 53 ). Although caregivers often minimize or fail to report the maltreatment of preverbal children( 54 ), children under 1 year of age had the highest rates of abuse (26.7 per 1000 children). In 2018, 1,770 children died of abuse/neglect (case fatality rate 2.39 per 100,000 children), with the highest case fatality rates in infants below 1-year (case fatality rate 22.8/100,000 children)( 53 ). Cumulative exposures have multi-layered effects on child development, with a “mediated net of adversity” that simultaneously augments their risk across cognitive, quality of life, social, economic, psychiatric, and physical health outcomes( 55 ).

Health Implications of Adverse Childhood Experiences

A systematic review of pediatric health outcomes associated with ACEs found prospective evidence for impaired physical growth and cognitive development, higher risks for childhood obesity, asthma, infections, non-febrile illnesses, disordered sleep, delayed menarche, and non-specific somatic complaints( 56 ). These outcomes depended on the ACE characteristics, age of occurrence, and specific types of exposures. For example, prospective studies showed that parental discord or violence were associated with obesity in childhood( 57 , 58 ), whereas prospective studies showed that physical or sexual abuse were associated with youth obesity( 59 – 61 ). From prospective data, Brown et al. clustered the specific ACEs that led to specific risks, to form an ACEs-directed tree for identifying health outcomes( 41 ). For each additional ACE, children were 29-44% more likely to have complex health problems, with multiple needs across developmental, physical, and mental health( 41 ).

Children aged 2-5 years exposed to caregiver mental illness were most likely (56-57%) to have complex health concerns, with the additive effects of other risk factors( 41 ). A significantly higher prevalence of four or more ACEs was found in children with multiple unexplained chronic symptoms in six functional domains (executive dysfunction, sleep disturbances, autonomic dysregulation, somatic complaints, digestive symptoms, emotional dysregulation) compared to matched controls (88% vs. 33%)( 62 ); suggesting a syndrome of nervous system dysregulation in these children, much like that seen in Gulf War veterans( 63 ).

Retrospective studies based on adult recall linked ACEs with an increased vulnerability to chronic non-communicable diseases, substance abuse, sexual risk-taking behaviors( 52 , 64 – 69 ), suicide, domestic violence( 66 , 70 – 73 ), and worse physical and mental health( 44 , 74 – 77 ). From 24,000 adults in the World Mental Health Surveys, retrospective data on childhood adversities doubled the risk of adult psychotic episodes, accounting for 31% of psychotic episodes globally( 78 ). Sexual abuse, physical abuse, and parent criminality had the strongest associations with later psychotic episodes( 78 ).

A meta-analysis of adult health outcomes following four or more ACEs found increased risks for all 23 health and social outcomes, with weak associations for physical inactivity, weight gain, and diabetes; moderate associations for smoking, heavy alcohol use, poor self-rated health, cancer, heart, lung, and digestive diseases; stronger associations for sexual risk-taking, mental ill health, problematic alcohol use, and decreased life satisfaction; and the strongest associations for drug abuse, interpersonal violence, and suicide( 79 ) ( Table 2 ). Thus, ACEs not only contribute to global burdens of adult disease, but their strongest associations with drug abuse, domestic violence, and suicide may directly inflict ACEs onto the next generation( 80 – 82 ).

Outcomes following exposure ≧4 to Adverse Childhood Experiences

Pooled Odds Ratios (ORs) from random effects meta-analyses.

(Modified with permission from: Hughes, et al., Lancet Public Health 2017, 2: e356-e366 (ref. 64 ))

Genetic and Epigenetic Changes:

These intergenerational effects are accentuated via altered gene expression through conserved transcriptional responses to adversity( 83 ), coupled with epigenetic changes such as telomere shortening, reduced stem cell populations, elevated methylation and nitration states among genes in the stress-responsive, inflammation, or other pathways( 84 – 87 ). Stress-associated epigenetic changes contribute to aberrant neuronal plasticity ( 88 ), affect disorders ( 88 ), post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol use disorder ( 89 ) and depression ( 90 – 93 ), transmitting their physical and mental health risks to future generations( 79 , 94 , 95 ). Mechanisms of stress-associated epigenetic changes may involve DNA methylation or histone acetylation( 90 , 92 , 96 2015, 97 ), changes in mitochondrial DNA copy number and mitochondrial dynamics( 97 ), and microRNAs which are transported via exosomes or binding proteins( 98 ) to regulate the signaling pathways for gene silencing, cellular differentiation, autophagy, and apoptosis( 99 ).

From a systematic review of epigenetic changes in HPA-axis genes, Argentieri et al. found prospective evidence for methylation of HSD11beta2 with hypertension, NR3C1 with small cell lung cancer and breast cancer, FKBP5 and NR3C1 with PTSD, as well as plausible associations of FKBP5 methylation with Alzheimer’s Disease( 84 ). In particular, the glucocorticoid nuclear receptor gene NR3C1 undergoes methylation in varying gene regions from different social and environmental exposures, associated with different mental health outcomes( 84 ).

Focusing solely on PTSD-associated genetic changes, Blacker et al. found 3989 genes upregulated and 3 genes downregulated from 4 GWAS studies in PTSD patients( 85 ). Among the differentially methylated genes, DOCK2 (dedicator of cytokinesis 2) and MAN2C1 (α-mannosidase) were associated with immune system dysregulation in PTSD subjects( 85 ). Urban African-American males with PTSD showed increased global DNA methylation and differential DNA methylation in several genes: decreased in TPR (nuclear membrane trafficking) and ANXA2 genes (calcium-regulated membrane-binding protein), increased in CLEC9A (activation receptor on myeloid cells), ACP5 (leukemia-associated glycoprotein), and TLR8 genes (innate immunity activation)( 100 ). In African-American women with PTSD, this study found a higher methylation of the histone deacetylase 4 gene (HDAC4)( 100 ). A systematic review of stress-associated epigenetic changes and depression found differential methylation of NRC31, SLCA4, BDNF, FKBP5, SKA2, OXTR, LINGO3, POU3F1 and ITGB1, associated with altered glucocorticoid signaling (NR3C1, FKBP5), serotonergic signaling (SLC6A4), and neurotrophin genes (BDNF)( 87 ). Another systematic review confirmed that ELS-triggered epigenomic modulation of NR3C1 was correlated with major depressive disorder( 101 ).

Childhood socioeconomic deprivation and ACEs can lead to adult diseases by increasing their inflammatory burden via multiple genetic factors, including single nucleotide polymorphisms, and epigenetic factors, including nuclear factor-kappaB (NFκB)-mediated gene methylation and histone acetylation. These changes increase expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines, reactive oxygen species, reactive nitrogen species and induce several microRNAs (miR-155, miR-181b-1, miR-146a), with widespread effects on the immune system( 86 ). ELA also alters HPA-axis reactivity in adulthood by (i) genetic factors, such as glucocorticoid receptor polymorphisms; (ii) epigenetic factors altering glucocorticoid receptor function, including methylation of NR3C1, FKBP5, and HSD11beta2; (iii) chronic inflammation due to chronic nitrosative and oxidative stress; and (iv) brain mitochondrial DNA copy number and transcription, with altered mitochondrial dynamics, structure, and function in adulthood( 86 ).

Limitations of the ACEs Score

Despite the known effects of ACEs on genetic/epigenetic changes and long-term health outcomes, it is short-sighted to focus only on ACEs for clinical decisions related to ELA. Newer frameworks must include factors ignored by ACEs scores, including (a) the age of onset and offset; (b) severity of trauma ; (c) frequency of traumatic events; (d) periodicity of trauma within specific developmental periods; (e) concurrence of traumatic events; and (f) multiplicity of events across childhood( 102 ). Thus, popular use of the ACEs score as a proxy for toxic stress appears grossly inadequate.

The American Academy of Pediatrics defines toxic stress “as the excessive or prolonged activation of physiologic stress response systems in the absence of the buffering protection afforded by stable, responsive relationships”( 29 , 30 ). However, toxic stress depends on the child’s complete social ecology, including multiple variabilities in their adverse experiences, environmental conditions, and protective factors( 1 , 33 , 103 , 104 ). Lacey et al. argued that because all ACEs do not carry the same emotional weight or elicit similar distress levels , binary “yes/no” responses cannot represent their impact on the child( 46 ). Lack of consistency in defining ACEs also makes it difficult to compare childhood adversities across different studies( 46 ); further limited by the lack of self-report, absence of protective factors, and dependence on caregiver report( 31 , 46 ). Caregivers may be more inclined to report their child’s behaviors as “problematic” than to divulge personal difficulties, family dynamics, or household dysfunctions( 31 ).

The ACEs score originated as an epidemiological research tool based on adult interpretations of their childhood experiences, but has since been extrapolated to clinical settings( 105 , 106 ). California launched a public health initiative in 2020 to screen children for ACEs in all outpatient visits( 45 ). However, there is limited practical experience of ACEs screening in the clinic, limited resources to address the identified ACEs, and nominal evidence-based algorithms for managing children with multiple ACEs( 31 , 46 ). If clinic-screened ACEs do not relate to recent trauma and the patient appreas asymptomatic, the next steps remain unclear( 42 , 45 ). Potential outcomes of this policy may include unnecessary referrals to Child Protective Services or pediatric subspecialists( 32 , 45 ). The inconsistent description of ACEs in different inventories highlights the broader point that there is no consensus on how to define childhood adversity or grade its intensity( 46 ). This has serious implications for how the ACEs questionnaire is used outside of epidemiology, especially to inform clinical, social, or policy interventions.

Other Factors in the Social Ecology of Childhood

ELA incorporates broader features beyond the individual experiences identified as ACEs( 107 ). For instance, the association between ACEs and child health was strengthened when researchers also accounted for interpersonal victimization (community violence, property crime, bullying), highlighting the cumulative harm from different forms of trauma( 70 ). ELA can be attributed to factors within all ecological systems affecting individuals, families, communities, or broader societies( 52 , 108 ). The rich interplay between these systems must be emphasized, since significant ecological factors are not “stand-alone” but can alter multiple systems at once.

Individual factors:

Effects of childhood adversity typically emphasize the unidirectional effect of negative experiences on child development, disregarding individual demographics or personality factors. Substantial theoretical work on child development highlights the transactional and dynamic interplay between individuals and their environment( 109 ). Sameroff and Chandler consider developmental outcomes to be a function of such transactions, which exert continual effects on one another( 110 ). Similarly, individuals function as active and self-regulating entitities, changing dynamically with the environment and also changing their environment( 111 ). Thus, explanations for emerging health outcomes must account for mutual interactions between individual children and their environmental inputs( 109 ).

Household Factors:

Family environments, characterized by overt conflict, neglect, passive aggression, or unaffectionate interaction styles( 112 ) are associated with a broad range of mental and physical health disorders( 40 , 113 ). Parental traumatic experiences and environments can affect the quality of parenting and child development( 113 ). Maternal depression and trauma are associated with increased rates of insecure attachment in children( 114 – 117 ), related to decreased maternal responsiveness and affective availability( 114 , 118 , 119 ).

Sustained economic problems affect children directly by limiting material resources and indirectly through parental distress, which undermines the parents’ capacity for supportive and consistent parenting( 120 ) , ( 121 ). For example, fathers facing financial losses became more irritable, tense, and explosive, with punitive, rejecting, and inconsistent disciplining behaviors, associated with emotional difficulties in their children( 121 – 123 ).

Community Factors:

Neighborhood deprivation negatively impacts mental and physical health lasting into adulthood( 124 ), likely related to telomere shortening( 125 , 126 ), altered cortisol regulation( 126 ), increased inflammation( 127 ), and differential DNA methylation( 128 ). Children who grow up in communities with higher rates of violence, crime, and noise may suffer from increased stress and lasting trauma( 129 – 131 ). Poor local infrastructure can also affect access to resources such as food and healthcare which can exacerbate health issues( 131 ).

Broader Societal Factors:

Negative societal attitudes and biases, like racial discrimination or segregation, pervade all aspects of a child’s ecology and persist over time; therefore evaluating these factors is particularly important for long-term health outcomes in children of color( 132 – 134 ). Perceived racial discrimination and stereotype threat can trigger stress responses and can affect cognitive processes and academic performance( 135 ). For example, greater perceived discrimination was associated with greater cortisol output in Mexican–American youth( 136 ). Childhood exposures to interpersonal racial discrimination and structural racism stemming from media, schools, law enforcement, government policies, and other cultural stressors also lead to psychological distress and changes in allostatic load for racial minorities in the U.S.( 133 , 134 ). While negative inputs clearly affect the developing brain, positive inputs and protective factors, such as social buffering or individual resilience play equally important roles( 109 , 137 )( Figure 2 ).

Adverse and protective factors in a child’s life are organized by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model. Governmental, socioeconomic and cultural factors in the macrosystem may steer the child’s exosystem either towards adversity or adaptation. ELA (red box/arrows) and adaptation (green box/arrows) may work in tandem to build a child’s resilience, support education, income adequacy, health equity, and access to basic social services. The mesosystem forms an interface between the exosytem and the family unit with variable effects on the child’s milieu. In the microsystem, children are exposed to ELA or pro-social affiliations that affect their developmental, cognitive, behavioral, and health outcomes.

Protective Factors in the Child’s Social Ecology

ELA research must account for the factors that temper adversity, including support, temperament, resilience, and adaptation. For example, the Risky Families questionnaire includes supportive factors (e.g., parental love and support, household dynamics) and ACEs( 138 ). Although stress biology is highly susceptible to early experiences, it is just as malleable to supportive and protective factors( 139 , 140 ). We discuss the role of positive experiences, social relationships, and resilience factors that help children cope with adversity.

Positive Experiences:

Greater emphasis on positive and supportive experiences, fundamental to developing healthy brain architectures and buffering children against the effects of contextual stressors( 141 , 142 ), would complement existing data on the health consequences of ELA. A validated method to assess positive/protective experiences in ELA is the Benevolent Childhood Experiences scale( 143 ).

The Healthy Outcomes from Positive Experiences (HOPE) framework led by Sege and colleagues focuses on promoting positive childhood experiences to prevent or mitigate the effects of ELA. HOPE creates a strong foundation for learning, productive behavior, physical, and mental health( 144 ). Given that young children experience their world through their relationships with parents and other caregivers, positive childhood experiences that engage the child, the parent, and the parent-child relationship are essential( 141 , 142 ). In Wisconsin, positive childhood experiences were associated with dose-dependent reductions in the adult mental health and relational health impairments resulting from ACE exposures( 145 ).

HOPE identifies 4 broad categories of positive experiences and their effects on child development. ( 1 ) Sustained supportive relationships are associated with better physical and mental health, fewer behavior problems, higher educational achievement, more productive employment, and less involvement with social services and criminal justice systems( 141 ). ( 2 ) Growing and learning in safe, stable environments are important for children’s physical, emotional, social, cognitive development, and behavioral health, conferring lifelong benefits( 141 , 146 ). ( 3 ) Opportunities for constructive social engagement and connectedness can promote secure attachment, belonging, personal value, and positive regard( 141 , 147 , 148 ). ( 4 ) Social and emotional competencies cultivate self-awareness and confidence, laying the foundation for learning and problem-solving, identity development, communication skills, and secure personal relationships( 141 ).

Social Relationships:

John Bowlby observed that children separated from their mothers showed intense distress and later maladjustments. In the Attachment Theory , he posited that uninterrupted, secure maternal-infant bonding was evolutionarily adaptive( 149 ). Beginning with maternal-infant bonding, the layering of nurturing, supportive relationships throughout child development enriches self-perception, self-image, and coping skills. Positive social relationships also reduce pain ratings, HPA-axis reactivity, and aberrant brain activation( 150 – 154 ). Perceived social support from friends (not family members) was associated with fewer trauma symptoms in adult survivors of childhood maltreatment( 155 ). Culture-related protective factors can also be leveraged to overcome ELA and promote normal development( 156 ). Thus, social connections with family and non-family members may protect against stress responses to adversity across the lifespan.

Resilience:

Resilience science grew out of concerted efforts to understand, prevent, and treat mental health problems( 157 ). Scientists observed that some children adapted remarkably well despite high levels of adversity. Resilience generally refers to the capacity of any system to recover from exposure to stressors or adversity; it is a mirror image of vulnerability, with processes and capacities common to both( 158 – 160 ). Feldman argues that the construct of resilience involves systems and processes that tune the brain to its social ecology and adapt to its hardships( 161 ). In traumatized children, Happer et al. found stronger evidence for resilience as a process, partial support for resilience as an outcome, but none for resilience as a trait( 162 ).

While resilience research is summarized elsewhere( 160 , 161 , 163 , 164 ), an emerging list of resilience factors in children is featured in Table 3 ( 160 ). Resilience science distinguishes between protective and promotive factors; protective factors have greater effects in the context of adversity, but promotive factors improve outcomes more broadly( 160 , 165 , 166 ).

Resilience-Associated Factors in the Child’s Social Ecology

Adapted from Table 2 in Masten and Barnes 2018 .

Early life adversities, particularly in the absence of protective factors, can trigger a set of emotional responses, metabolic adjustments, physical/behavioral responses, and immune changes contributing to allostasis through the “fight or flight or freeze response” . Many stress responses are regulated through the neuroendocrine system, studied most extensively for the HPA axis.

Neuroendocrine Regulation of Stress Responses

Stress activates the neuroendocrine system, resulting in cortisol and catecholamine release( 31 , 44 ). The stress response evolves through two phases: the first is dominated by catecholamine release, and the second by cortisol. Simultaneous activation of the salience neuronal network and deactivation of the executive control network mediate the first phase( 44 ). The salience network includes the anterior insula, amygdala, hippocampus, striatum, medial prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices; it integrates cognitive processes for responding to threats, with swift actions to promote survival( 44 , 167 ). The executive control network includes prefrontal and parietal cortices to mediate working memory, impulse control, and emotional regulation( 44 , 167 ). The second phase mediates recovery from stress responses by deactivating the salience network and re-engaging executive control. Such restoration of homeostasis after stress is termed the “adaptive stress response”( 44 ).

Emotional stimuli can activate salience network activity at lower thresholds in the “maladaptive stress response,” resulting in conditioned hyperarousal( 44 ). Allostasis, the HPA-axis adaptation to stress, is maintained in maladaptive stress responses, although resulting in somewhat delayed homeostasis( 31 , 44 , 167 ). Allostatic load results from the repetitive activation of HPA mechanisms attempting to restore homeostasis without returning to baseline( 44 ). Excessive HPA activation causes allostatic components to be unbalanced, leading to architectural and functional changes in the salience and executive control networks( 31 , 43 , 167 , 168 ). Indeed, higher bedtime cortisol levels predicted the reduced prefrontal cortex volumes in traumatized adolescents( 169 ). Chronic adversities overload the neuroendocrine system’s capacity to maintain homeostasis and, especially during periods of heightened neuroplasticity (from prenancy to early childhood), affect crucial aspects of brain development implicated in cognition, self-regulation, physical and mental health( 41 , 43 , 44 , 167 ).

The HPA axis and executive functions mature by age 4-6 years( 170 – 172 ), and a normally functioning HPA axis limits cortisol exposures through negative feedback loops to the anterior pituitary and hypothalamus. These negative feedback loops become ineffective in children with HPA-axis dysregulation( 173 ). Thus, toxic stress may lead to hyper- or hypo-responsivity of the HPA axis, with failed adaptation and eventual exhaustion( 174 ) ( Figure 3 ). HPA-axis dysregulation manifests as emotional problems in preschool children such as internalizing and externalizing behaviors( 175 – 179 ). Considering the harmful manifestations of HPA-axis dysregulation in children and vulnerability of their immature HPA-axis, it is critical that we establish biomarkers for screening preschool children.

Representative patterns of adaptive (green) and dysregulated (red) HPA-axis responses. In the perinatal phase, the fetal brain may be exposed to maternal cortisol levels resulting from prenatal stress, usually associated with dampening of the infant’s HPA-axis postnatally, often lasting into infancy and early childhood. Exposures to ELA/stress then manifest as hyperactive responses to acute stress, which, if prolonged or repetitive, can lead to chronically dysregulated diurnal rhythms and HPA-axis exhaustion.

Cortisol as a Biomarker of Early Life Adversity

Long-term consequences of ELA are mediated through the neuroendocrine system, with downstream effects on neuroimmune, neuroenteric, and cardiometabolic regulation( 43 , 50 ). Measuring stress biomarkers could overcome the inherent limitations of subjective questionnaires and difficulties of implementing the ACEs checklist in children( 44 ). Cortisol, the end-product of HPA-axis activation, regulates the HPA axis through negative feedback loops, activates the autonomic nervous system, alters intermediary metabolism, modulates physiological and immune responses, and contributes to the memory and learning from traumatic experiences( 180 , 181 ). Therefore, cortisol is an important biomarker for ELA( 182 ).

Plasma, salivary, or urinary cortisol levels reflect acute stress reactivity but cannot assess chronic stress because of its diurnal cycles, high state reactivity, pulsatile secretion patterns, and robust changes across age, sex, reproductive cycles, and food intake( 183 – 185 ). A systematic review concluded that HCC represents a measure recent stress, but it included studies from 16 species, which only collected cross-sectional data( 186 ). Measuring acute cortisol responses has significant limitations; repeated sampling over prolonged periods is time-consuming, expensive, and subject to non-compliance. Blood sampling is painful, difficult in children, requires trained staff and stringent laboratory conditions. Salivary sampling is inexpensive and less invasive( 31 , 167 ), but limited by inconsistent collection methods and food-related variability( 31 , 167 , 183 ). Urine sampling from children is challenging, with low participant compliance, sample refrigeration, and urinary metabolites interfere with cortisol measurements( 31 ). In contrast, hair sampling is non-invasive, independent of diurnal cycles, stored at room temperature, and provides chronologically distinct data for cortisol activity up to 6 months( 187 – 189 ).

Emerging research suggests that human hair follicles are neuroendocrine organs that index physiological stress responses( 190 , 191 ). Hair grows about 1 centimeter per month( 192 ) and incorporates the circulating free cortisol( 193 , 194 ), although the underlying mechanisms remain unknown( 195 , 196 ). Russell et al. proposed that free cortisol from the follicular vasculature passively diffuses into the hair shaft, or the hair follicle, sweat, and sebaceous glands may secrete and deposit cortisol into the hair shaft( 196 , 197 ). Like hemoglobin A 1c for blood glucose, hair cortisol concentrations (HCC) summate the cortisol release over time( 198 – 200 ). Earlier concerns about hair washing( 201 , 202 ) and HCC contamination from cortisol secreted by sebaceous or sweat glands have been refuted( 203 , 204 ). HCC show high test-retest reliability, were validated against serum, salivary, and urine cortisol, and are widely accepted as measures of chronic stress in adults( 200 , 205 ) and children( 193 , 199 , 206 ).

Effects of sex, age, and race:

Previous studies reported higher HCC in boys than in girls( 201 , 207 ). However, current data show no sex differences among preschool children( 28 , 193 ), higher HCC in pre-pubertal boys than girls, and no differences after puberty( 208 ). Variations of HCC with age are unclear, with most studies showing age-related decreases in preschool years( 28 , 209 , 210 ). Racialized experiences and structural racial discrimination may contribute to the higher HCC in African-American children compared to children from other races( 28 , 211 ).

Effects of prenatal and postnatal environments:

Higher HCC in 1-year-old infants were associated with maternal parenting stress, depression, and psychological distress( 211 ). Prenatal traumatic events were significantly associated with their child’s HCC at age 3 and 4 years, even after adjustments for known mediators like postpartum depression, parenting stress, psychological distress, child abuse potential; as well as preterm birth or body mass index (BMI)( 212 ).

Other studies found higher HCC in newborns following neonatal intensive care( 213 ), children with early trauma( 214 , 215 ), and children with high fearfulness ratings upon school entry( 206 ). In 6-7 year-olds, low HCC values suggestive of HPA-axis dysregulation were associated with exposures to frequent neonatal pain( 216 ), or harsh parenting( 217 ). Although perinatal adversities may alter long-term HPA-axis regulation into the school-age period, the most prominent postnatal influences on HPA activity result from poverty and early deprivation( 210 , 218 , 219 ).

Effects of socioeconomic adversity:

Children raised in poverty are often exposed to chronic stress, either directly (from food, housing, energy insecurity( 220 ), bullying( 221 , 222 ), or neighborhood violence( 126 )) or indirectly via parental stress( 223 ). Higher HCC were associated with lower parental education( 224 ), lower family income, more household members, single-parent households( 201 ), and deprived neighborhoods( 219 ). Similar associations between ELA and chronic stress( 225 – 228 ) may result from insensitive or rigid parenting( 217 ), parenting stress( 211 , 212 ), neighborhood effects( 126 , 219 ), and other poverty-related factors( 229 – 231 ). To understand the importance of these differences, we explore the implications of HCC as a chronic stress marker and subsequent health outcomes.

Hair Cortisol Concentrations: Implications for Health

Epidemiologic studies have established links between chronic stress, HPA-axis dysregulation, and subsequent physical and mental health outcomes( 27 , 232 ), but only a few of these studies have included HCC as a biomarker for chronic stress ( 189 , 193 ).

Higher HCC in preschool children were associated with impaired social-emotional development and increased risks for developmental delay( 28 , 211 ). In 6-8 year-old children, increased HCC were associated with higher BMI in girls and somatic complaints in boys( 207 ). In older children, increased HCC were associated with higher BMI( 208 ), other measures of obesity( 233 – 236 ), and vulnerability to common childhood illnesses( 237 ), even after controlling for factors such as race, age, gestational age, and birth weight. HCC were reduced in children with asthma( 238 ), possibly from HPA axis suppression due to inhaled corticosteroids( 239 – 241 ). Higher HCC also occurred in children with epilepsy( 242 ) and girls with anorexia nervosa( 243 ), but no differences were found in children with anxiety( 244 ) or depression( 215 , 244 ) as compared to controls.

In adults, HCC was increased in major depression, decreased in general anxiety disorder, whereas HCC changes in PTSD depended on the type of traumatic experience and elapsed time since trauma( 245 , 246 ). Increased HCC was used as a biomarker for stratifying cardiovascular risk and linked to obesity, hypertension, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease( 245 , 247 ). In the survivors of physical and sexual abuse, higher HCC during pregnancy were associated with preterm labor( 248 – 250 ).

Since HCC has been correlated with physical and mental illnesses in children and adults, it can be used to probe the connections between ELA, HPA-axis activity, and health outcomes. HCC may also provide unique insights into the physiological ramifications of adversities located and perpetuated in a child’s social ecology.

Current Knowledge Gaps and Future Directions

Significant gaps in our knowledge of ELA must be addressed to understand relationships between ELA and health outcomes. Research using subjective and objective methods should assess community and societal factors alongside with household conditions and parental factors, complemented concurrently by biomarkers.

The ACEs questionnaire was created using patients’ recollection of childhood experiences and correlated with subsequent health conditions. However, the equivalence between adult recollections of ACEs and caregivers’ responses on behalf of their child’s current lived experiences remains undetermined. Caregivers may be unreliable historians of their young child’s experiences, with significant differences between their and the child’s perceptions. Additionally, serial ACEs screening in children does not help us to understand how to prevent or treat ACEs, and potentially reinforces the negative emotions that children have of their experiences.

Historically, the relations among ELA, ELS, and health were studied using lab stress tests, sleep studies, neuroimaging, anthropometrics, epigenetic markers, or galvanic skin responses( 251 , 252 ). This research included small sample sizes, failed to account for developmental differences, and inconsistently sampled age, sex, and racial/ethnic subgroups. Large, population-based studies can overcome these weaknesses using less invasive and less expensive means for recording ELA/ELS, child-centered measurements of stress responses, recording protective/supportive factors, and web-based data entry to minimize costs and increase compliance. Monitoring vital signs for ELA assessments may be less useful if these measures are temporally separated from the adverse experiences. Researchers should consider real-time measures of chronic stress through wearables to index the impact of ELA on health.

ELA alters gene expression through conserved transcriptional responses to adversity (CTRA)( 83 ) contributing to aberrant neuronal plasticity, affect disorders, PTSD, depression and substance abuse( 88 – 93 ). Mechanisms of stress-associated epigenetic changes( 86 , 92 , 253 , 254 ), mitochondrial DNA copy number, telomere shortening( 255 ), and secreted microRNAs( 98 , 99 ) must be investigated in children and adolescents, while also examining the reversibility of these epigenetic modifications and their contributions to later health outcomes.

Social interactions with attentive caregivers reduce infant stress responses and facilitate development( 256 ). Nurturing experiences like “kangaroo care” can reduce neurodevelopmental risks in preterm infants( 257 , 258 ). Secure attachments and friendships across the lifespan play protective roles in cognitive function, physical health, and emotional self-regulation( 259 ). Parent-child involvement in mindfulness-based, mind-body approaches can reduce stress and enhance recovery( 260 ). We encourage researchers to explore the underlying biological mechanisms for social buffering, positive experiences, and other protective/supportive factors.

Screening for ELA without concurrent efforts to abolish the social injustices that promote such adversities is futile. Individual screening cannot, and should not, replace efforts to address the root causes of health inequity, including poverty, lack of healthcare, community violence, racism, and gender-based discrimination. Researchers should work alongside clinicians, politicians, educators, social workers, and community members to develop intervention programs that promote resilience in children and to deconstruct the societal and legal infrastructures that perpetuate systemic inequities. We recommend use of biomarkers such as HCC to supplement existing research efforts and public health interventions as a quantitative, biological marker, firstly, to enhance our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology that mediates the association of ELA with poor health outcomes and secondly, to improve evaluations of the impact of preventive or therapeutic interventions on their intended beneficiaries (i.e., children) in the community.

Conclusions

Research to ensure that ELA can be assessed in the context of a child’s social ecology, not just their ACEs score, is urgently needed. ELA and ELS increase the child’s vulnerability to short-term effects on behaviors, emotions, lifestyle choices, and relationships; with long-term effects on their physical health, psychiatric, social, and economic outcomes. Positive experiences and protective factors must also be considered when investigating the long-term consequences of ELA. Cumulative knowledge from these studies can then guide practical interventions for improving childhood ecologies to decrease ELA and improve health outcomes.

Significant knowledge gaps need to be filled through research in this area. Objective biomarkers for ELA/ELS and protective factors should be validated and used to probe the social ecology of childhood. Intergenerational effects of ELA through epigenetic changes associated with increased vulnerability or resilience must be identified and incorporated into therapeutic trials. Novel approaches for studying the child’s social ecology, possibly from wearables, other real-time measures, or biomarkers, will supplement the parent/caregiver surveys and clinic-based observations. This will inform the development of screening programs, investigations of the underlying mechanisms, and the interventions designed to address the short- and long-term outcomes of ELA across the lifespan. Well-designed trials are essential to establish a scientific framework for proposed preventive measures, therapeutic interventions, social policy changes, or public awareness campaigns. Lack of sufficient investment in investigating and/or addressing the pervasive, pernicious effects of ELA will only escalate its prevalence and long-term consequences for future generations, thereby trapping at-risk families, communities, and neighborhoods into further early life adversities and reduced human potential.

• Current research does not support the practice of using adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) as the main lens for understanding early childhood experiences.
• The social ecology of early childhood provides a contextual framework for evaluating the long-term health consequences of early life adversity.
• Comprehensive assessments reinforced with physiological measures and/or selected biomarkers, such as hair cortisol concentrations to assess early life stress, may provide critical insights into the relationships between early adversity, stress axis regulation, and subsequent health outcomes.

Acknowledgments

Financial Support : Grants from the NIH/National Institute for Drug Abuse (R41 DA046983, P.I. Anand), NIH/ Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health & Human Development (R01 HD099296, P.I. Anand; R21 HD090493, P.I. Gotlib); and NIH/National Institute of Mental Health (R37 MH101495, P.I. Gotlib). Study sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; the preparation, review, approval, or decision to publish this manuscript. Authors received no honoraria, grants, or other payments for writing this manuscript.

Disclosure statement : Authors received no honoraria, grants, or other payments for writing this manuscript. In addition, the authors report no relevant financial relationships and no conflicts of interest.

Ethics Statement : No patients were studied, IRB approval was not required, and patient consent was not obtained for writing this review article.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.