From U.

Bronfenbrenner (Ed),Making human being human: Bioecologicol

perspectives on human development (pp. 3-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Article 1
!.~; ( : ..,"~':;",
1 , .:
The Bioecological
Theory of Human
Development
!
1.-
The bioecological theory of human development reached maturity 1 0
year after the publication of "!cological "ytemTheory" (#rticle 1 0 of
thi volume$, %hich had called the future of the "ecology of human
development" into &uetion a a dicipline. The follo%ing ucceor to
that article accept the bioecological theory aa paradigm for the future
and pecifie it defining propertie.
T
he b!oe"o#og$"a# mode#, %oge%her &!%h !%s "orres'ond!ng resear"h
des!gns, !s an e(o#(!ng %heore%!"a# s)s%em for %he s"!en%!f!"s%ud) of
human de(e#o'men% o(er %!me. *!%h!n %he b!oe"o#og!"a#%heor), de(e#o'+
men% !s def!ned as %he phenomenon of continuity and change in ihe biopsycho
logical characteristics of human beings both as indioiduals and as groups. he
phenomenon e!tends over the li"e course across successive generaiions and
through historical time, both past and presento
Sour"e: Bronfenbrenner, U. ,-..1). The b!oe"o#og!"a# %heor) of human
de(e#o'men%. /n 0. 1 . Sme#ser 2 3. B. Ba#%es ,4ds.), lniernational encyclopedia #$ the
social and behavioral sciences ,5o#. 1., ''. 676879.). 0e& :ork: 4#se(!er. ;e'r!n%ed
&!%h 'erm!ss!on from 4#se(!er S"!en"e <%d.
3
4 On the Nature of Bioecological Theory and Research
Defining Properties of the Bioecological Model
The term evolving highlights the fact that the model, along with its corre
sponding research designs, has itself undergone a process of development
over its own "lfe course" !nother defining property of the "ioecological
model specifies that it deals with two closely related "ut nevertheless
fundamentally different developmental processes, each ta#ing place over
time The first defines the phenomenon under investigation$ namely, that
of continuity and change in the "iopsychological characteristics of human
"eings The second focuses on the development of the scientific tools%the
theoretical models and corresponding research designs re&uired for
assessing the continuity and change
These two tas#s cannot "e carried out independently, for they are the
'oint product of emerging and converging ideas, "ased on "oth theoreti
cal and empirical grounds%a process called "developmental science in
the discovery mode" (Bronfen"renner & )vans, *+++, pp ,,,%-+++. In
the more familiar "verification mode," the aim is to replicate previous
findings in other settings to ma#e sure that the findings still apply Bycon
trast, in the discovery mode, the airn is to fulfill two "roader "ut nter
related o"'ectives$
- /evising new altemative hypotheses and corresponding research designs
that not only call e0isting results into &uestion "ut also stand a chance of
yielding new, more differentiated, more precise, replica"le research find
ings and there"y producing more valid scientific #nowledge
* 1roviding scientific "ases for the design of effective social policies and pro
grams that can counteract newly emerging developmentally disruptive
influences This has "een an e0plicit o"'ective of the "ioecological model
from its earliest "eginnings
: :
!ma'ar challenge to today2 s "ioecological model is to discover how such
new wor#ing hypotheses and corresponding research designs can "e devel
oped for the future One answer lies in the possi"ility that, despite histor
cal change, sorne elements of the model, and their interrelationships, may
remain constant across "oth time and space 3rom this perspective, today2s
model has several distinctive defining properties that "ecome the foun
dation for the rest 4orne are of relatively recent origin5 others date "ac# to
the model2s earliest formal "eginnings )ach is e0pressed here in the form
of a proposition
The Bioecological Theory of Human Development 5
Proposition 1
An early critical element in the definition of the ecological model is
experience. The term is used to indicate that the scientifically relevant
features of any environment for human development indude not only
its objective properties but also the way in which these properties are
subjectively experienced by the persons living in that environment. This
eual emphasis on an experiential as well as an objective view springs
neither from any antipathy to behavioristic concepts nor from a predilec!
tion for existential philosophical foundations. It is dictated simply by
a hard fact. "ery few of the extemal influences significantly affecting
human behavior and development can be described solely in terms of
objective physical conditions and events#
$ critical term inthe foregoing formulation %s the word solely. &n the
bioecological model# both objective and subjective elements are posited as
driving the course of human development' neither alone is presumed suf!
ficient. (oreover# these elements do not always operate in the same direc!
tion# It is therefore important to understand the nature of each of these
two dynamic forces# beginning on the phenomenological or experiential side.
Both of the underlined terms are relevant because# while related to each
other# they are typically applied to somewhat different spheres. The for!
mer is more often used in relation to how the environment is perceived
and changed by human beings at successive stages of the life course#
beginning in early infancy and proceeding through childhood# adoles!
cence# adulthood# and# ultimately# old age.
By contrast# experience pertains to the realm of subjective feelings)
for example# anticipations# forebodings# hopes# doubts# or personal beliefs.
These# too# emerge inearly childhood# continue through life# and are charac!
teri*ed by both stability and change. They can relate to self or to others# and
especially to family# friends# and other close associates. They can also apply
to the activities inwhich one engages) for example# those that one most or
least li+es to do. But the most distinctive feature of suchexperiential ualities
is that they are uemotionally and motivationally &oaded#, encompassing both
love and hate# joy and sorrow# curiosity and boredom# desire and revulsion#
often with both polarities existing at the same time but usually in differing
degrees. $significant body of researchevidence indicates that such positive
and negative subjective forces# evolving in the past# can also contribute in
powerful ways to shaping the course of development in the future.
But these are not the only powerful forces at wor+. There are others
that are more objective in nature. This does not mean# however# that they
6 On the Nature of Bioecological Theory and Research
are necessarily either more or less influential, mainly because the two sets
of forces are interdependent and affect each other. Like their subjectie
counterparts, these more objectiefactors alsorely for their assessment on
corresponding theoretical models and associated research des!gns that
hae eoled oer time. These more objectie relationships are docu"
mented below in the form of two propositions #Bronfenbrenner $ %ans,
&'''( Bronfenbrenner $ )orris, *++,-.The f!rst specifies the theoret!ca.
model and proides concrete e/amples0 the second foreshadows the
corresponding research designs for their assessment.
1roposition ..
Oer the lifecourse, human deelopment takes placethrough processes
of progressiely more comple/ reciprocal interaction between an actie,
eoling biopsychologicalhuman organismand the persons, objects,and
symbols in its immediate e/ternal enironment. Tobe effectie,the inter"
action must occur on a fairly regular basis oer e/tended periods of time.
2uch enduring forms of interaction in the immediate enironment are
referred to as proximal processes. %/amplesof such processes inc*udefeed"
ingor comfort!nga baby( playing with a young child(ch!ld3childactiities(
group or solitary play( reading, learning new skills( athletic actiities(
problem soling( caring for others( making plans( performing comple/
tasks( and ac4uiring new knowledge and know3how.
5or the younger generation, participation in such interactie processes
oer time generates the ability, motiation, knowledge, and skill to
engage in such actiities both with others and on one6s own. 5or e/ample,
through progressiely more comple/ interaction with their parents,
children increasinglybecome agents of their own deelopment, tobe sure
only in parto
Insum, proximal processes are posited as the primary engines of deel"
opment. The ne/t defining property speaks to the corresponding research
designs.
1roposition III
The form, power, content, and direction of the pro/imal processes
producing deelopment ary systematically as a joint function of the
characteristicsof the developing person #includinggenetic inheritance); of the
environment-both immediate and more remote33in which the processes
are taking place( of the nature of the developmental outcomes under consider"
ation( and of fue continuities and changes occurring in the enironment
The Bioecological Theory of Human Deve!opment 7
over time, through the !ifecourse, and during the historical period in which
the person has lved.
Propositions II and III are theoretically interdependent and su!ect to
empirica! test. "n operational research design that permits their simul#
taneous investigation is referred to as a procese-person-coniexi-time model
$PP%T for short&.
Inthe corresponding research designs for the ioecological model, the
e!ement of time has special importance. To show that development has
actually occurred, the research design must demonstrate, or at least ma'e
plausile, that the elements in the design, and their dynamic relationships
to each other, have influenced the iopsychological characteristics of the
developing person over an e(tended period of time. )or e(ample, a rich
data archive generously made availale y *mall and +uster $,--.& from
their statewide studies of youth at ris' in /isconsin has made possile
some reanalyses of wor'ing hypotheses derived from the newly emerging
formulations.
Parental monitoring was defined as 0the effort y parents to 'eep
informed aout and set limits on their children1s activities outside the
1home.0 Higher levels of academic performance re2uire mastery of pro#
gressively more comple( tas's and hence are more difficult to achieve.
The relation etween parental monitoring and school grades shows a
declining curvilinear trend. This effect, however, is far stronger for girls
than for oys, particularly in families with two iological parents.
Both of these results are consistent with two wor'ing hypotheses
derived from the ioecological modelo The first stipulates that pro(imal
processes $in this instance, parental monitoring& are li'ely to have greater
impact in two3parent families than in those in which the mother is a single
parent or the father is a step3parent, The second hypothesis posits a
stronger and longer3lasting influence of the family on the development of
females than of males.
In addition, a distinctive feature of the pattem for girls is that the curve
mar'edly flattens at higher levels of monitoring and, in the case of daugh#
ters of single3parent mothers, even ecomes a tumaround. This finding
suggests that under such circumstances the demands on the girls may
ecome so great that the e(isting pro(imal processes are not e2ual to the
tas' and, as a result, ring fewer educational returns. )inally, an analysis
of data on students whose mothers had no more than a high school
education revealed a similar pattern, ut the constructive influence of
monitoring was apprecialy wea'er, and its greater enefit to girls was
reduced. 4evertheless, daughters of mothers with less than a high school
education oth in single3parent and in stepfather families still had higher
8 On the Nature of Bioecological Theory and Research
grade point average (GPA)scores than did sonsoMoreover, ithin each
level of !other"s educatian statistically significant differences #y fa!ily
structure ere found in school achieve!ent, ith students groing up in
to$parent fa!ilies receiving the highest grades and those frorn single%
parent fa!ilies the loest&
Also, a second analysis as carried out assessing the influence of the
!other"s educational level on the effects of her parental !onitoring&
Because, for a nurn#er of reasons, the addition of this para!eter !a'es
the interpretation of the findings in graphic for! rather co!ple(, the
rnain results are su!!ari)ed #elo&
i
"*
+ ,
"*
II'
III'!
'. . .
I
* & The effect o- parental !onitoring on students" ePA as clearly greatest for
those ho ere living ith #oth #iolog-cal parents and hose !others had
had sorne education #eyond high school& Also, the e(tent and positive
effect of !others" !onitoring as greatest at the #eginning of high school
and decreased gradual.y thereafter&
/& The constructive influence o- !others ith educaton beyond hgh school #oth
in 0!other$only0 farnilies and in those ith 0on !other and stepfather0
as considera#ly less and declined !ore rapidly&
1& The results of parental !onitoring #y !others ith less than a high school
education ere also positive #ut not as strong& Mothers fro! fa!ilies ith
to #iological parents ere again the !ost effective !onitors, #ut less so
than those ith sorne education #eyond high school& The !eans for the
three types of fa!ily structures ere in the sa!e order #ut also closer
together&
The interpretation of these findings is eonfounded #y the a#senee of
separate statistics for !ales and fe!ales, a condition arising fro!the lo
fre2uencies of su#3ects of #oth genders a!ong ehildren in fa!ilies other
than those consisting of to #iological parents&
.n conclusion, to 2ualifieations are re2uired regarding the scientific
validity of the reported findings& 4irst and fore!ost, !ost of the reported
research as condueted a decade ago and !ay not, in a* *instances, apply
to the outeorne of parent$ehild rnonitoring in the present year, /55* &
6econd, it is not alays the case that separated or single$parent fa!ilies
put the future developrnent of their children at ris'& Insorne instances,
such farnily forrnslead to ne relationships and structures that rna'epos%
si#le a constructive change in the course of their children"s developrnent&
Totu! to a related issue7 although pro(i!al proeesses function as the
engines of developrnent, the energy that drives the! co!es fro! deeper
The Bioecological Theory of Human Development 9
sources that take us back to the experiential world of Proposition l. Both
the subjective and the objective forces exert an especially strong influence
on development during the formative years from early infancy to young
adulthood!. " substantial body of research over the past century indicates
that# two or three decades ago# these forces lay mainly within the family#
with parents acting as the principal caregivers and sources of emotional
support for their children# and with other adult family members living
in the home being next in lineoTo a lesser extent# other relatives# family
friends# and neighbors also functioned in this role.
There has been a marked change in this pattern# however# over the past
three decades. Parents# and other adult family members as well# have
been spending increasing amounts of time cornmuting to and working
at full$time jobs in which overtime is increasingly often re%uired or
expected!.
The nature of this trend and its relevance for human development are
conveyed in the propositions that follow. Por brevity&s sake# the term
child is used below to encompass the entire period from infancy through
young adulthood.!
Proposition '(
Inorder to develop$intellectually# emotionally# socially# and morally)
a child re%uires# for a**of these# the same thing+ participation in progres
svely more complex actioities, on a regular basis over an extended period of
time in the child&s l,fe# with one or more persons with whom the child
develops a strong, mutual emotional atiachmeni, and who are commtted to the
child's tuell-being and deoelopment, preferably for lije Bronfenbrenner &
-vans# .///0 Bronfenbrenner 1 2orris# *993!.The prere%uisites stipulated
in Proposition '( then lead to the developmental conse%uences described
in the next proposition.
Proposition (
The establishment of a strong mutual emotional attachment leads to
internalization of the parent&s activities and expressed feelings of affection.
4uch mutual ties# in turn# mot,vate the child&s interest and engagement in
related activities in the immediate phys,cal# social# and$in due course)
symbolic environment that invite exploration# manipulation# elaboration#
and imagination. The next proposition broadens the family circle.
10 On the Nature of Bioecological Theory and Research
Proposition VI
:~" , " :
:' :' ,
The establishment and maintenance of patterns of progressively more
complex interaction and emotional attachment beteen parent and child
depend in substantial degree on the availability and involvement of
another adult! a third party, ho assists! encourages! spells off! gives sta"
tus to! and expresses admiration and affection for the person caring for
and engaging in #oint activity ith the child$ It also helps! but is not
absolutely essential! that the third party be of the opposite sex from that
of the other person caringfor the childbecause this is li%elytoexposeand
involve the child in a greater variety of developmenta&yinstigative activ"
ities and experiences 'Bronfenbrenner!(c)lelland! *ethington! (oen! &
)eci! 1++,-$*here this is an attachment to to or more parent figures!
each can serve as a third party to the other$
The research evidence for this proposition carne mainly by default$ It
as produced by demographic data documenting a rapid rise in the pro"
portion of single.parent households$ The trend began in the 1+/00and
then continued at an even faster rate through most of the 1++0s$Theover"
helming ma#ority of such homes ere those in hich the father as
absent and the mother bore primary responsibility for the upbringing of
the children$
1large number of investigations of developmental processes and out"
comes in families of this %ind have since been conducted across a range
of cultural and social c1assgroups$ In general! the findings lead to to
complementary conclusions$
2irst! even in familiesliving in favorable socioeconomiccircumstances!
children of single.parent mothers or fathers for hom no other person is
acting reliably in a 3third.party3 role are at greater ris% for experiencing
one or more of the folloing developmental problems4 hyperactivity or
ithdraal5 lac%of attentiveness5 difficultyin deferring gratification5poor
academic achievement5 school misbehavior5 and fre6uent absenteeism$
7econd! at a more serious level! such children are at greater ris% for
a so.called 3teenage syndrome3 of behaviors that tend to be associated
together4 dropping out of school5 involvement in socially alienated or
destructive peer groups5 smo%ing5 drin%ing5 fre6uent sexual experience5
adolescent pregnancy5 a cynical attitude toard or%5 and.in the more
extreme cases.drugs! suicide! vandalism! violence! and criminal acts$
(ost of these effects are more pronounced for boys than for girls
'Bronfenbrenner et al$! 1++,-$
Not all single.parent farnilies!hoever! exhibited these disturbed rela"
tionshipsand their d8sruptive effectson children9s development$7ystematic
"
$:$$
; 41
... ;
;!
<<
, I
j i
,
11
11
i j ' 1!9
I
The Bioecological Theory of Human Development 11
srudies of the exceptions have identified what may be described as a
general "immunzng" factor.or example! children of single parents were
less li"ely to experience developmental problems especially in families in
which the mother #or father$ received strong support from other adults
living in the home. %lsohelpful were nearby relatives! friends! neighbors!
members of religious groups! and! when available! staff members of
family support and child care programs. &hat mattered most was not
only the attention given to the child'important as this was'but also the
assistance provided to the single parent or by others serving in the sup(
portive roles cited in )roposition *+. Itwould seern that! in the family
dance! "it ta"es three to tango."
But dancing is not the whole story. By the 1,-./!theory and research
in the ecology of human development had documented an accelerating
trend toward greater permissiveness in styles of child rearing in %merican
families.%t the same time! successivescientificinvestigationshad revealed
progressively greater developmental advantage for strategies that placed
increased emphasis on parental discipline and demando The interpreta(
tion that emerged from analyses of the available data suggested that
widespread application of these research findings could serve as an effec(
tive response to the developmentally disruptive changes ta"ing place in
contemporary society.
%t thispoint! it is important tomention two other bodies of researchthat
contributed significant+yto the development of bioecological theory and
its corresponding research designs. The first is now of long standing. %
0uarter'century ago! the sociologist1len H. 2lder 3r.!in his classicvolume
Chiidren of the Great Depression #1,45!1,,,$!extended the concept of devel(
opment beyond the formativeyears to encompass the entire life course.
Thesecondaddition has yet tobe fully exploited.In1,,5!Bronfenbrenner
and 6eci! ta"ing the bioecological model as their point of departure! sug(
gested an empirically testable alternative to the established scientific
paradigm used in behavior genetics. The proposed altemative model
#a$allows for nonadditive synergistic effects7#b$ employs direct measures
of the environment7 and #e$proposes proximal processes as mechanisms of
person'environment interaction through which genotypes for develop(
mental competence are transformed into phenotypes. The model predicts
that #a$ estimates of heritability (hZ ) for developmental competence
increase mar"edly with the magnitude of proximal processes7 #b$ her(
tability measures the proportion of variation in individual differences
that are attributable on+y to actualized genetic potential! with the degree
of unactualized potential remaining un"nown7 and #e$ actualized genetic
potential #h8$ will vary with the 0uality of the envirorunent and will
12 On the Nature of Bioecological Theory and Research
increase as that quality is improved (for example, through providing [o
opportunities, health services, and intervention programs in lo!"income
neighorhoods#$
The authors also suggested that high levels of such pattems of parental
ehavior as %neglect, ause, or domination% can serve as po!erful mecha&
nisms for aetuali'ing genetic potentials for developmentally maladaptive
ehaviors that oth disrupt proximal proeesses and produce develop&
mental disarray$
The Bioecological Model
in the Discovery Mode: Future Perspectives
This section is ased on propositions and !or(ing hypotheses derived
from the ioecologieal model for !hich, as yet, there are fe! empirical
data$ )t egins !ith future prospects for addressing the second stated goal
of the ioeeological model, that of %providing needed seientifieases for
the design of effective social policies and programs that can counteract
ne!ly emerging developmentally disruptive influenees$%
*n accord!ith the latter o+ective,the sectionegins !ith an unorthodox
proposal$ By and large, thus far, theory and research on human develop&
ment have een concemed !ith the influenceof the older generationon the
development of the younger$ *n the proposition that follo!s, the direction
is reversed$ Itshould e noted that the asic idea under1yingthis proposi&
tion is not ne! and is foreshado!ed oth in the theory of ,ygots(y(1-./#
and in the contemporary %action% theory of Brandtstadter (1--/,1---#$
0roposition VIII
The psychological development of parents is po!erfully influenced y
the ehavior and development of their children$ This phenomenon occurs
through the life eourse1 is more evident during the formative years, !hen
most children are living at home in the care of their parents2 and often
ecomes especially pronounced during adolescence, !hen the young
egin to strive for independence oth as individuals and as memers
of peer groups$ 3uch ehavior is particularly li(ely to occur among
those adolescents or youth !ho have comparatively little contact !ith
their parents or other caring adults earlier in life$ 4lthough many studies
have focused on the development of such alienated young people, the
impact of the latter5s ehavior on the susequent development of their
parents has yet to receivethe systematic investigation that itdeserves$ The
The Boecological Theory of Human Development 13
converse of the foregoing propostion-the nfluence of the successful
transition of children through adolescence and young adulthood on the
constructve development o their parents-has regrettably recevedeven
less scientificattention.
Proposition I
!ver the life course" the process of attachment e#hibits a turnaround.
In the begnning" it is the children $ho are the beneficiarlesof the parents%
irrational commitment" $hereas to$ard the end the roles are reversed.
Then it is the elderly parents $ho receive the love and care of their no$
middle-aged children. If" ho$ever" there $as no attachment at the begin&
ning" there may be no attachment at the end.
Inthis regard" developmental scencehas yet to address a curious omis&
sion $ith respect to both theory and research designo'esort to search
engines in psychology and related fields has thus far failedto identfy any
investigations of the influence of parent-child attachment in the future
development of the parent in contrast to that of the child.
This is not (uite the case" ho$ever" for the ne#t propositon in
the discovery mode. The theoretical model" the corresponding research
design"and half of the necessary empirical data are already available. The
only problem is to find or conduct a study that meets the follo$ing
re(uirements.
Proposition
Ifan investigaton conducted in the past meets the re(uirements of the
bioecological model" including assessment of developmental outcomes
)over an e#tended period of time") then replication of the study at a later
point in time $ould reveal $hether the processes under investgation
$ere still valid or had been nullified or superseded by subse(uent histor&
ical changes. *hen the latter occurs" the investigator is confronted $ith
the challenge of proposng alternative $or+ing formulations for e#plain&
ing the observed phenomena.
,t the conclusion of this artcle" $e move from the domain of theory
and research design to the $orld of reality and action. Inthe bioecologi&
cal model" these t$o $orlds have never been far aparto-speciallyover the
last three decades" they have become ever doser to each other. ,t a more
general level" the findngs from both domains reveal $hat has been
referred to as )gro$ing chaos) in the lives of children" youth" farniles"
schools" the $orld of $or+" and the ever-greater comrnuting inbet$een.
14 On the Nature oI Hioecological Theory and Research
Themost recent report oI this phenomenon contains the Iollowing surrunary
about the nature oI "chaos" and its developmental consequences
(HronIenbrenner & Evans, 2000):
I
I
Chaos integrates the various elements involved, and Ioreshadows the role |oI
chaos| in the bioecological model in terms oi what is called a "chaotic sys-
tem." Such systems are characterized by Irenetic activity, lack oI structure,
unpredictability in everyday activities, and high levels oI ambient stimula-
tion. Hackground stimulation is high, and there is a general lack oI rou-
tinization and structure in daily liIe. The environment is also a major source oI
interruption oi proximal processes in the Iorro oI residential noise, crowding,
and classroom designo (p. 121)

q
1
' : 1
At the tum oI the century, we are IeIt with a troubling question: From
the perspective oI the bioecological model, what is the prospect Ior the
Iuture development oI our species? Today the answer to that question Hes
in the willingness oI the United States and other economically developed
countries to heed the emerging lessons oI developmental science, At the
moment, it is diIIicult to know what the answer will be. The Iuture could
go either way.
Given this altemative, surely it becornes the responsibility oI develop-
mental science to communicate such knowledge as we possess and to do
so in words that can still Iind an echo. Here is a Iirst draIt.
Inthe United States it is now possible Ior a youth, Iemale as well as
male, to graduate Irom high school, or a university, without ever caring
Ior a baby; without ever looking aIter someone who was ill,old, or loneIy;
and without comIorting or assisting another human being who really
needed help. The developmental consequences oI such a deprivation oI
human experience have not as yet been scientiIically researched. Hut the
possible social implications are obvious, Ior-sooner or later, and usually
sooner-all oI us suIIer illness, loneliness, and the need Ior help, comIort,
and companionship. No society can long sustain itselI unless its members
have Ieamed the sensitivities, motivations, and skills involved inassisting
and caring Ior other human beings.
;
,.
References
i
, .
Hrandtstadter, I . (1998). Action perspectives on human development. In
\. Damon (Series Ed.) 8 R. V. Lemer (Vol.Ed.), Handbook 01chiid psychology:
Vol. 1. Theoretical models 01 human development (5th ed., pp. 807-863).
New York:|ohn \iley.
The Bioecological Theory of Human Development 15
Brandtstadter, J . (1999). The self in action and development !ultural, "iosocial,
and ontogenetic "ases of intentional self#development. $n J . Brandtstadter &
%. &. 'emer ((ds. ), Action and self-development: Theory and research through the
life span (pp. )*#+5). Thousand ,a-s, !. /age.
Bronfen"renner, V., 0 !eci, /. J . (1991). 2ature#nurture reconceptuali3ed
. "io#ecological modelo Psych%gica/ Review, 10/(4), 568-586.
Bronfen"renner, V., 0 (vans, 4. 5. (6777). Developmental sc8ence inthe 61st
century (merging theoretical rnodels, research designa, and emp8rica9 find:
ings. Social Deoelopmeni, 9(1), 115#165.
Bronfen"renner, ;. , &c!lelland, <. , 5ethington, (. , &oen, <. , &!eci, /. J . (199+).
The state of Americans: This generaiion and the net! 2e= >or- ?ree <ress.
Bronfen"renner, ;. , & &orris, <. A. (199@). The ecology of developmental
processes. $n 5. Damon (/eries (d. ) &%. &. 'emer (Aol. (d. ), "and#oo$ of
child psychology: %ol! 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed. ,
pp. 99)#176@). 2e= >or- Bohn 5iley.
(lder, G. H. , J r. (19*1). &hildren of the &reat Depreseion! !h8cago ;niversity of
!hicago <ress.
(lder, 4. H. (1999). &hildren of the &reat Depression (65th .nniversary (dition).
!hicago ;niversity of !h8cago <ress.
/mall, /. , &'uster, T. (1997, 2ovem"er, 6*). 'outh at ris$ for parenthood! <aper
presented at the !reating !aring !ommunity !onference, &ichigan /tate
;niversity, (ast 'ansing.
Aygots-y, L. /. (19*@). (ind and society: The deve/opment of higher psychological
processes! !am"ridge, &. Harvard ;niversity <ress.
".
. ,
1
1
!
! l : .: : :
. : _ _ J
,
B i o e c o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s o n
H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t
U r i e B r o n f e n b r e n n e r , E d i t o r
C om ell U niversity