A final element of the bioecological system is the chronosystem, which refers to how the bioecological system changes over time. As people grow and change, they take on and let go of various roles. For example, graduating from college, getting married, and becoming a parent involve changes in roles and shifts in microsystems. These shifts in contexts, called ecological transitions, occur throughout life.
The bioecological model was criticized recently for its vague explanation of development, especially the role of culture (Vélez-Agosto, Soto-Crespo, Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, Vega-Molina, & García Coll, 2017). Situated in the macrosystem, culture is said to influence development through the interdependence of the systems. Yet current conceptualizations of culture describe it as all the processes used by people as they make meaning or think through interactions with group members (Mistry et al., 2016; Yoshikawa, Mistry, & Wang, 2016). Critics therefore argue that since culture is manifested in our daily activities, it is inherent in each bioecological level (Vélez-Agosto et al., 2017). Moreover, cultural changes derive from interactions and pressures at each ecological level, not simply the macrosystem as Bronfenbrenner believed (Varnum & Grossmann, 2017).
Lives in Context: Cultural Context
Effects of Exposure to Community Violence
The neighborhoods and communities where children reside are important contextual factors that influence their development. It is estimated that over one-third of all children and adolescents witness violence within their communities (Kennedy & Ceballo, 2014), and the number is much higher in some inner-city neighborhoods. Community violence is particularly damaging to development because it is experienced across multiple contexts—school, playground, and home. The chronic and random nature of community violence presents a constant threat to children and parents’ sense of safety. In such environments, children learn that the world is a dangerous and unpredictable place and that parents are unable to offer protection.
Children exposed to chronic community violence display anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, commonly seen in individuals exposed to the extreme trauma of war and natural disasters, including exaggerated startle responses, difficulty eating and sleeping, and academic and cognitive problems (Fowler, Tompsett, Braciszewski, Jacques-Tiura, & Baltes, 2009; Kennedy & Ceballo, 2014). The periodic and unpredictable experience of intense emotions may interfere with children’s ability to identify and regulate their emotions and can disrupt the development of empathy and prosocial responses. Children who are exposed to community violence tend to be less socially aware, to be less skilled, and to display more aggressive and disruptive behavior than other children (McMahon et al., 2013).
Community violence also affects parents. Parents who are exposed to community violence may feel alienated from the community and unsafe (Guo, O’Connor Duffany, Shebl, Santilli, & Keene, 2018). The parental distress, frustration, and sense of helplessness that accompany community violence can compromise parenting (Vincent, 2009). When dealing with their own grief, fear, and anxiety, parents may be less available for physical and emotional caregiving, which in turn predicts poor child adjustment (Farver, Xu, Eppe, Fernandez, & Schwartz, 2005). They also experience a heightened risk for depression (Jacoby, Tach, Guerra, Wiebe, & Richmond, 2017), posing risks to parenting (Dempsey, McQuillin, Butler, & Axelrad, 2016).
Community violence is unquestionably detrimental to developmental outcomes. However, some children display more resilience to its negative effects than others. Three factors appear to protect children from the most negative effects of exposure to community violence: (1) having a supportive person in the environment; (2) having a protected place in the neighborhood that provides a safe haven from violence exposure; and (3) having personal resources such as adaptable temperament, intelligence, or coping capacities (Jain & Cohen, 2013). Unfortunately, the fear that accompanies community violence influences all members of the community, reducing supports and safe havens. Effective interventions to combat the effects of community violence include after-school community centers that allow children to interact with each other and caring adults in a safe context that permits them to develop skills in coping, conflict resolution, and emotional regulation.
What Do You Think?
Consider the problem of community violence from a bioecological perspective.
1 How might community violence influence individuals through the mesosystem and microsystem?
2 Identify exosystem and macrosystem factors that might influence the prevalence of community violence.
3 How can we help children and families? Identify microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem factors that might help children and families cope with community violence. ●
A second criticism arises from the sheer complexity of the bioecological model and its attention to patterns and dynamic interactions. We can never measure and account for all of the potential individual and contextual influences on development at once, making it difficult to devise research studies to test the validity of the model. Proponents, however, argue that it is not necessary to test all of the model’s components at once. Instead, smaller studies can examine each component over time (Jaeger, 2016; Tudge et al., 2016). In any case, bioecological systems theory remains an important contribution toward explaining children’s development and is a theory that we will consider throughout this book. The Lives in Context feature further examines the effects of contextual factors on development.
Ethology and Evolutionary Developmental Theory
What motivates parents of most species to care for their young? Some researchers argue that caregiving behaviors have an evolutionary basis. Ethology is the scientific study of the evolutionary basis of behavior (Bateson, 2015). In 1859, Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, explaining that all species adapt and evolve over time. Specifically, traits that enable a species to adapt, thrive, and mate tend to be passed to succeeding generations because they improve the likelihood of the individual and species’ survival. Several early theorists applied the concepts of evolution to behavior. Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen, two European zoologists, observed animal species in their natural environments and noticed patterns of behavior that appeared to be inborn, emerged early in life, and ensured the animals’ survival. For example, shortly after birth, goslings imprint to their mother, meaning that they bond to her and follow her. Imprinting aids the goslings’ survival because it ensures that they stay close to their mother, get fed, and remain protected. In order for imprinting to occur, the mother goose must be present immediately after the goslings hatch; mothers instinctively stay close to the nest so that their young can imprint (Lorenz, 1952).
According to John Bowlby (1969), humans also display biologically preprogrammed behaviors that have survival value and promote development. For example, caregivers naturally respond to infants’ cues. Crying, smiling, and grasping are inborn ways that infants get attention from caregivers, bring caregivers into physical contact, and ensure that they will be safe and cared for. Such behaviors have adaptive significance because they meet infants’ needs and promote the formation of bonds with caregivers, ensuring that the caregivers will feel a strong desire and obligation to care for them (Bowlby, 1973). In this way, innate biological drives and behaviors work together with experience to influence adaptation and ultimately an individual’s survival.
Another theory, evolutionary developmental theory, applies principles of evolution and scientific knowledge about the interactive influence of genetic and environmental mechanisms to understand the changes people undergo throughout their lives (Bjorklund, 2018a; Witherington & Lickliter, 2016). You may have wondered, for example, whether you—your abilities, personality, and competencies—result from your genes or from the physical and social environment in which you were raised. Evolutionary developmental scientists explain that this is the wrong question to ask. From an evolutionary development perspective, genes and context interact in an ever-changing way such that it is impossible to isolate the contributions of each to development (Witherington & Lickliter, 2016). While all of our traits and characteristics are influenced by genes, contextual factors influence the expression