Bronfenbrennner (1988) identified and analysed the range of models utilised during the 1980’s for the study of human development. His focus was to
systematically describe the nature of the models employed at the time, to highlight the strength and growth areas of each, and to delve into the possibilities for
improving existing models by combining their constructive elements. In so doing he identified the social address model; the personal attributes model; the sociological niche model; the person-context model; microsystem process model; process- context model, and lastly, process-person-context model for exploration. The social address model examined phenomena’s such as social class, nationality, employment status and marital status within particular environments. Bronfenbrenner (1988) described the model as involving “little more than the comparison of children or adults growing up in different geographical or social locations” (p. 28) and consequently saw it as simplistic. He argued that the model was limited to the environment, but yet there was no clear definition and specification of what the environment was like, who lived in the environment, what they were doing, or how their actions could affect the development of a child. Furthermore, it gave no account of the biological and psychological characteristics of the individual. The personal attributes model incorporated biological and psychological
characteristics of the individual, but focused exclusively on examining stability and change in the same characteristic over a period of time. The model was based on the assumption that the consequences that specific personal characteristics had in early life would be the same consequences evident in later life. This assumption gave no account for the possible change of environment(s) in which the
46
characteristic occurred over time. Bronfenbrenner (1977) consequently stated that this model was simplistic as well.
The sociological niche model made it possible to statistically analyse the
psychological characteristics of a person operating within two different contexts. This model identified specific social locations that were suitable or unsuitable for
psychological development, for example single-parent households with low income. This provided the researcher with a better understanding of the person based on statistics, as more dimensions of the person were taken into consideration. The model statistically analysed the psychological characteristics of a person, but did not pay attention to how the two contexts influenced the person developmentally. For this reason the model was also questioned by Bronfenbrenner (1988).
The person-context model focused on multiple social addresses, for example rural as well as urban areas, and combined multiple social addresses with the study of groups differing in their personal characteristics, for example, male versus female. Bronfenbrenner’s criticism of this model was that it was applied rarely in
developmental research and therefore too little was known about the degree to which the same environments could have different effects on individuals with different personal characteristics. For Bronfenbrenner (1988) the above models all lacked a definition of the processes through which characteristics of the individual or the environment, single-handedly or in combination, function to yield a specific developmental outcome (Bronfenbrenner, 1988). Thus, he turned his attention to models or paradigms that allow the assessment of processes through which the characteristics of the individual or the environment, or the combination of the individual and the environment yield a specific developmental outcome.
47
Bronfenbrenner identified the microsystem process model. This model viewed personal characteristics of the individual or physical features, objects, or persons in the individual’s immediate environment or “microsystem” (Bronfenbrenner, 1976 as cited in Bronfenbrenner 1988), as causal of developmental outcomes. An example would be how the child’s temperament may be an indication of how the child will behave when he or she is older. From the perspective of this model, either the personal characteristics of the individual or the immediate environment were viewed as determining the behaviour or the development of the child (Bronfenbrenner, 1988).
Building on this was the process-context model that referred to research models that investigate causal processes influencing psychological development from beyond the microsystem. According to Bronfenbrenner(1988) the work of Tulkin (1970, as cited in Bronfenbrenner 1988) made a significant contribution in this field. Tulkin’s work showed that middle-class mothers, who engaged more in reciprocal interactions with their babies, regarded themselves and their child as more capable. Bronfenbrenner believed that Tulkin’s contribution was significant, but that one more component was needed to produce a theoretically and methodically sound model. Therefore, he adapted the model to propose the process-person-context model (Bronfenbrenner 1988).
The process-person-context model provided information about three distinct domains. These included the context in which development occurs, the personal characteristics of the organism present in that context, and the process through which the development of the organism occurs. Furthermore, the proposed model made provision for the possibility that the form and the direction of the process of
48
development may vary as a joint function of the characteristics of the context, and of the characteristics of the developing organism.
With regards to the context in which this development takes place,
Bronfenbrenner (1988) proposed a hierarchy of systems at four progressively more complex levels, namely the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and the
macrosystem. Bronfenbrenner (1988) later identified a significant omission within this design, that of the dimension of time. He stressed the importance of this dimension as developmental study is concerned with continuity and change over the life course. Thus, the chronosystem as the fifth level was added. Bronfenbrenner (1994, p. 37) explained: “…in order to understand human development, one must consider the entire ecological system in which growth occurs. This system is composed of five socially organised subsystems that help support and guide human growth”. He called this system the ecological model of human development. This model is based on Bronfenbrenner ecological systems theory.