Gibson’s (1979a) work on perception is often presented as the beginning of ecological psychology. He argued that perception could only be understood in relation to both the perceiver and the perceived. The environment that a living organism inhabits presents some possibilities and restricts others. An example might be the climate where an animal lives and the type of land. The organism also plays a part in influencing their habitats, for example by eating crops and building shelters. The environment offers an array of opportunities or “affordances” to organisms for how they can live in it (Gibson, 1979b). An organism’s characteristics will impact on which affordances are appropriate. For example, a tree can be used for climbing, eating, living in, or building with depending on the organism. The organism is also active in relation to affordances. For example, the potential of a tree to be used for building is only realized when it is felled and cut into pieces of wood. There is, therefore, an ongoing and reciprocal relationship between the organism and its surroundings. The organism both impacts on and is impacted by its environment.
Gibson saw perception and action as a reciprocal cycle, whereby what someone perceives influences their actions, and their actions impact on the way they perceive. Although Gibson’s theory was specifically about visual perception, the key premise of his ideas can inform our understanding of human development from an ecological perspective. He saw perception as an active process, shaped by characteristics of the environment, characteristics of the person, and relations with others. Therefore, the relationship between living things and their environments is mutual and reciprocal.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system is probably the most widely applied ecological perspective in psychology. The core features are the role of context in human development, and the interaction between person and environment.
Bronfenbrenner conceptualized the environment or “ecological system” as nested structures like a set of Russian dolls (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 3). The concentric circles or tiers of the ecological system represent the settings within which an individual is embedded, and which mutually shape their development. The person is at the center, and each system operates around them in a hierarchy, with those settings that they have most direct contact being closest and those that have a more distal relationship to their functioning positioned further away. Each layer is contained within the other, and each has an influence on the other structures, and on the person.
At the center of the ecological system is the growing child with their personal attributes – known as “developmentally instigative characteristics” (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). These characteristics comprise of dispositions (such as temperament, motivation, genes, biological features), resources (such as abilities, knowledge, skills) and demand characteristics (such as age, gender, appearance) (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). An individual’s personal attributes shape the way others behave towards them and sets in motion certain events or interactions in their environment.
The microsystem is the closest ecological system to the child and reflects the settings they interact with most often and most intensively. The home, family, peer group, and school would be examples, and the nature and quality of the relationships a child has with these contexts will have a direct impact on their daily life. For example, a child raised in a supportive and nurturing family will have a different experience to a child brought up in a volatile unstable one. In addition, how a child interacts with their microsystem will have an influence. A child who reacts to peers at school with friendliness and humor will likely have different relationships to a child who is conflictual or sullen. These examples show how a person’s characteristics can invite or discourage responses from the environment, and promote or discourage growth (Bronfenbrenner, 1989).
A child is regularly engaged in reciprocal interactions with others in their immediate environment, both in terms of small everyday encounters and larger, unusual, or dramatic events (Meadows, 2018). These bi‐directional interactions within the microsystem are termed “proximal processes” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Depending on the level of exposure (such as the timing, duration, frequency, and intensity of experiences), proximal processes have a powerful impact on developmental outcomes (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000).
At the next layer, the mesosystem represents the relationships between microsystems in the child’s environment. An example is the home–school relationship, where the quality of the relationship between children’s caregivers and school (for example, involvement in school activities, communication with teachers) will impact on the child’s ongoing development. Similarly, if a child’s peer group is known and liked by their family it will have a differential impact to circumstances where a child’s family does not know their friends or does not approve of them.
At the next layer of the ecological system is the exosystem. These are settings which interact and influence each other, but which may not directly involve the individual child. For example, a child is not part of their parent’s employment, but what happens in their workplace will have a knock‐on effect on a child’s home life. A parent who comes home stressed, works long hours or is in precarious employment will have a different impact on the child compared to a parent in secure stable well‐paid work who enjoys their job. Additionally, the child themselves will indirectly impact on a parent’s employment through, for example work–life balance and childcare arrangements.
The outer layer of the ecological system is the macrosystem. This is the largest system, yet most distant from the day‐to‐day experience of the child. This system consists of societal factors such as cultural beliefs, laws, and politics. For example, the political system will impact on educational policy and procedures in school, the economic climate will influence access to resources and the job market, and cultural ideologies around religion, gender, and sexuality will indirectly influence the child via the context in which they are raised. These high‐level aspects have a “trickle down” effect on other elements of the ecological system which ultimately shapes the day‐to‐day experience of the child.
As his theory developed, Bronfenbrenner added the chronosystem. The chronosystem represents the influence of time in development, and how it is characterized by continuity and change in people’s lives at three levels: microtime (continuity and discontinuity in proximal processes); mesotime (the frequency and duration of experiences); and macrotime (changing societal expectations and events within and across generations) (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
The ongoing interplay between someone’s personal characteristics and the social context that affects developmental processes over time is summarized as Person‐Process‐Context‐Time (PPCT) (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). “Person” refers to the child’s characteristics (i.e., their developmentally instigative characteristics); “Process” is the mechanism for development (i.e., through proximal processes); “Context” is the multiple systems within which a child interacts (i.e., microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem); and “Time” is the dynamic nature of development (i.e., the time, place, and historical context in which proximal processes occur). The four elements of the system (process, person, context, time) have a simultaneous influence on development.
Elder’s life‐course theory
Elder’s life‐course theory considers historical context and social timing within developmental trajectories. It shares complementary features with ecological perspectives, and both Elder and Bronfenbrenner referred to each other’s work to inform their own theories (Elder, 1995, 1998).
According to Elder, many things about how people live their lives remain the same, but there are also changes that occur across the life course and across history. The world is dynamic, which has an impact on people and their developmental trajectories (Elder, 1995). There are four principles underpinning his theory (Elder, 1998). The first is historical time and place, whereby an individual is shaped by the historical time they live through. Societal changes such as industrial growth,