Running head: NESTED OR NETWORKED? 1
Nested or Networked? Future Directions for Ecological Systems Theory
Jennifer Watling Neal & Zachary P. Neal
Michigan State University
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article:
Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2013). Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological
systems theory. Social Development, 22(4), 722-737. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12018
which has been published in final form at the link above. This article may be used for non-
commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived
Versions.
At the end of this document, adapted versions of Figure 1 (Nested Model) and Figure 2 (Networked
Model) are provided under a CC BY-NC-SA license. These adapted figures can be used in other
publications and in dissertations provided this paper is cited using the above reference. It is not
necessary to request permission to use these adapted figures. High-resolution PDF copies are
available at https://osf.io/bd836/.
Jennifer Watling Neal, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University; Zachary P. Neal,
Department of Sociology, Michigan State University. The authors contributed equally in the
conceptualization and writing of this paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer Watling Neal,
Department of Psychology, 316 W. Physics Rd., 127A Psychology Building, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824. Email: jneal@msu.edu.
Running head: NESTED OR NETWORKED? 2
Abstract
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (EST) is among the most widely adopted
theoretical frameworks for studying individuals in ecological contexts. In its traditional formulation,
different levels of ecological systems are viewed as nested within one another. In this paper, we use
Simmel’s notion of intersecting social circles and Bronfenbrenner’s earlier writing on social networks
to develop an alternative “networked” model that instead views ecological systems as an overlapping
arrangement of structures, each directly or indirectly connected to the others by the direct and indirect
social interactions of their participants. We redefine each of the systems discussed by EST – micro,
meso, exo, macro, and chrono – based on patterns of social interaction, and then illustrate how this
alternative model might be applied in the classic context of the developing child. We conclude by
discussing future directions for how the networked model of EST can be applied as a conceptual
framework, arguing that this approach offers developmental researchers with a more precise and
flexible way to think about ecological contexts. We also offer some initial suggestions for moving a
networked EST model from theory to method.
Keywords: Ecological systems theory, social networks, development, context, Bronfenbrenner
Running head: NESTED OR NETWORKED? 3
Nested or Networked? Future Directions for Ecological Systems Theory
Originally proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1979), ecological systems theory (EST) has
been widely adopted by developmental psychologists interested in understanding individuals in
context. Indeed, Google Scholar reveals that The Ecology of Human Development (Bronfenbrenner (1979),
which first outlined EST, has been cited nearly 15,000 times as of September 2012. Conceptually, EST
has been used to motivate a focus on setting level influences, guiding the development of contextual
models to explain a range of phenomena including urban adolescent psychological and academic
outcomes (e.g., Seidman, 1991), developmental risk and protective factors for substance use (e.g.,
Szapochnick & Coatsworth, 1999), youth activity engagement (e.g., Rose-Krasnor, 2009), and family
influences on gender development (e.g., McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003). Empirically,
developmental studies have used EST to identify contextual predictors or points of intervention that
lie beyond the individual. For instance, studies of children and youth have often examined aspects of
the peer, family, classroom/school, and neighborhood microsystems (e.g., Chipuer, 2001; Criss, Shaw,
Moilanen, Hitchings, & Ingoldsby, 2009; Gest & Rodkin, 2011; Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003;
Seidman et al., 1995) or mesosystemic interactions between these microsystems (e.g., Durlak et al.,
2007; Serpell & Mashburn, 2012). However, in general, empirical exploration of exosystems and
macrosystems in developmental studies applying an EST framework remains less frequent.
Although EST is widely recognized for underscoring the importance of interdependent and
multi-level systems on individual development, the precise relationships of systems to one another
remain elusive. Bronfenbrenner (1979) originally described ecological systems at different levels as
nested within one another, giving rise to EST’s classic graphic portrayal as a set of concentric circles.
However, in this paper we argue that conceptualizing ecological systems as nested obscures the
relationships between them. Instead, we argue that ecological systems should be conceptualized as
networked, where each system is defined in terms of the social relationships surrounding a focal
Running head: NESTED OR NETWORKED? 4
individual, and where systems at different levels relate to one another in an overlapping but non-nested
way. Defining ecological systems in network terms not only provides greater theoretical clarity, but
also yields a form of EST that more closely matches Bronfenbrenner’s (1945) early recognition of the
role of social networks in shaping development.
! To build this argument, we begin by reviewing the traditional conceptualization of ecological
systems as nested and highlight recent modifications to the theory. Then, drawing on Simmel’s (1955
[1922]) notion of intersecting social circles, we discuss how ecological systems are better
conceptualized as networked rather than nested. We illustrate the networked model of EST using the
hypothetical example of a developing child. Finally, we discuss implications of this new
conceptualization of ecological systems theory for future research.
Ecological Systems as Nested: The Traditional Model
Bronfenbrenner first proposed EST in a series of seminal publications in the 1970s and 1980s.
We focus on the theory and definitions provided in The Ecology of Human Development (Bronfenbrenner,
1979), which are largely consistent with his earlier and later writing (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1986a,
1986b), and which are summarized in Table 1. Bronfenbrenner (1979) described the topology of the
ecological environment as “a nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the next,” which
must be examined as an interdependent whole to fully understand the forces surrounding a developing
individual (p. 22). This approach represented a sharp departure from more traditional approaches to
developmental psychology of the day, which he derided as “the science of the strange behavior of
children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible periods of time” (p. 19). His
initial articulation of EST identified four such structures, or systems – the microsystem, mesosystem,
exosystem, and macrosystem – which are nested around a focal individual like a set of concentric
circles, or as Bronfenbrenner suggested, a set of Russian dolls (i.e. a matryoshka doll). Thus, nearly all
graphical depictions of EST rely on some variation of the concentric circles model shown in Figure 1.
Running head: NESTED OR NETWORKED? 5
Bronfenbrenner (1979) viewed each system as arising from a setting, which he defined as “a
place where people can readily engage in face-to-face interaction” (p. 22). At the lowest level of his
nested hierarchy, microsystems are settings where the focal individual plays a direct role, has direct
experiences, and has direct social interactions with others. Using the classic example of a developing
child (see Figure 1), the family is a microsystem where the child plays a direct role (e.g., daughter,
sibling), has direct experiences (e.g., enjoying family meals), and has direct social interactions with
others (e.g., reading with mom, teasing baby brother). Mesosystems, within which microsystems are
nested, include social interactions between two of the focal individual’s settings. In our example, a
mesosystem could include a meeting between a parent (from the child’s family setting) and teacher
(from the child’s school setting) about a child’s classroom behavior. This meeting represents a social
interaction between members of the child’s family microsystem and school microsystem. Exosystems,
within which mesosystems are nested, include settings that influence the focal individual but in which
the focal individual does not directly participate. An individual child generally does play a role in or
have direct experiences in the education policy-making community, but educational policies
nonetheless influence the child’s classroom and school experiences. For example, a district decision to
consolidate schools to save money may lead to larger classroom and school sizes, changing the
microsystems in which children interact. Finally, macrosystems, within which exosystems are nested,
include broad cultural influences or ideologies that have long-ranging consequences for the focal
individual. For instance, societal views that place emphasis on teacher accountability and standardized
test scores have led to policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that have implications
for how children experience schooling. In addition to the four core systems of EST, Bronfenbrenner
(1986a, 1986b) later introduced the chronosystem, a system reflecting change or continuity across time
that influences each of the other systems. Transitions like a child’s move from middle to high school
or the onset of puberty are part of the chronosystem.
