Infants and Children in Context. Tara L. Kuther

the ability to think, or process information. Mental processes, such as noticing, taking in, manipulating, storing, and retrieving information, do not show the radical changes associated with stage theories. Instead, development is continuous and entails changes in the efficiency and speed of thought. Maturation of the brain and nervous system contributes to changes in information processing abilities. Children become more efficient at attending to, storing, and processing information (Luna, Marek, Larsen, Tervo-Clemmens, & Chahal, 2015). Experience and interaction with others also contribute by helping children learn new ways of managing and manipulating information.

      Information processing theory offers a complex and detailed view of how children think, which permits scientists to make specific predictions about behavior and performance that can be tested in research studies. Indeed, information processing theory has generated a great many research studies and has garnered much empirical support (Halford & Andrews, 2011). Critics of the information processing perspective argue that a computer model cannot capture the complexity of the human mind and children’s unique cognitive abilities. In addition, findings from laboratory research may not extend to everyday contexts in which children must adapt to changing circumstances and challenges to attention (Miller, 2016).

      Contextual Theories

      Contextual theories emphasize the role of the sociocultural context in development. Children are immersed in their social contexts; they are inseparable from the cultural beliefs and societal, neighborhood, and familial contexts in which they live. The origins of sociocultural systems theory lie with two theorists, Lev Vygotsky and Urie Bronfenbrenner.

      Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

      Writing at the same time as Piaget, Russian scholar Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) offered a different perspective on development, especially cognitive development, that emphasized the importance of culture. Recall that culture refers to the beliefs, values, customs, and skills of a group; it is a product of people’s interactions in everyday settings (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory examines how cultural tools, such as language and patterns of thought and behavior, are transmitted from one generation to the next through social interaction. Children interact with adults and more experienced peers as they talk, play, and work alongside them. It is through these formal and informal social contacts that children learn about their culture and adopt the ways of thinking and behaving that characterize their culture. By participating in cooperative dialogues and receiving guidance from adults and more expert peers, children adopt their culture’s perspectives and practices, learning to think and behave as members of their society (Rogoff, 2016). Over time, they become able to apply these ways of thinking to guide their own actions, thus requiring less assistance from adults and peers (Rogoff, Moore, Correa-Chavez, & Dexter, 2014).

      Lev Vygotsky’s (1896–1934) sociocultural theory examines how cultural tools, such as language, are transmitted from one generation to the next through social interaction.

      Heritage Images/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

      Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory holds important implications for understanding cognitive development. Like Piaget, Vygotsky emphasized that children actively participate in their development by engaging with the world around them. However, Vygotsky also viewed cognitive development as a social process that relies on interactions with adults, more mature peers, and other members of their culture. Vygotsky also argued that acquiring language is a particularly important milestone for children because it enables them to think in new ways and have more sophisticated dialogues with others, advancing their learning about culturally valued perspectives and activities. We will revisit Vygotsky’s ideas about the roles of culture, language, and thought in Chapter 8.

      Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory is an important addition to the field of human development because it is the first theory to emphasize the role of the cultural context in influencing children’s development. Critics argue that sociocultural theory overemphasizes the role of context, minimizes the role of children in their own development, and neglects the influence of genetic and biological factors (Crain, 2016).

      Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory

      Similar to other developmental theorists, Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005) believed that children are active in their own development. Specifically, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory poses that development is a result of the ongoing interactions among biological, cognitive, and psychological changes within the person and his or her changing context (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Bronfenbrenner proposed that all individuals are embedded in, or surrounded by, a series of contexts: home, school, neighborhood, culture, and society, as shown in Figure 1.4. The bioecological systems theory thus offers a comprehensive perspective on the role of context as an influence on development. As shown in Figure 1.4, contexts are organized into a series of systems in which individuals are embedded and that interact with one another and the person to influence development.

      Description

      Figure 1.4 Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory

      Source: Adapted from Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006).

      At the center of the bioecological model is the individual. The developing person’s genetic, psychological, socioemotional, and personality traits interact, influencing each other. For example, physical development, such as brain maturation, may influence cognitive development, which in turn may influence social development, such as a child’s understanding of friendship. Social development then may influence cognitive development, as children may learn activities or ideas from each other. In this way, the various forms of development interact. The individual interacts with the contexts in which he or she is embedded, influencing and being influenced by them (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

      The individual is embedded in the innermost level of context, the microsystem, which includes interactions with the immediate physical and social environment surrounding the person, such as family, peers, and school. Because the microsystem contains the developing person, it has an immediate and direct influence on his or her development. For example, peer relationships can influence a person’s sense of self-esteem, social skills, and emotional development.

      The next level, the mesosystem, refers to the relations and interactions among microsystems, or connections among contexts. For example, experiences in the home (one microsystem) influence those at school (another microsystem); therefore, parents who encourage and provide support for reading will influence the child’s experiences in the classroom. Like the microsystem, the mesosystem has a direct influence on the individual because he or she is a participant in it.

      The exosystem consists of settings in which the individual is not a participant but that nevertheless influence him or her. For example, a child typically does not participate in a parent’s work setting, yet the work setting has an indirect influence on the child because it affects the parent’s mood. The availability of funding for schools, another exosystem factor, indirectly affects children by influencing the availability of classroom resources. The exosystem is an important contribution to our understanding of development because it shows us how the effects of outside factors trickle down and indirectly affect children and adults.

      The macrosystem is the greater sociocultural context in which the microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem are embedded. It includes cultural values, legal and political practices, and other elements of the society at large. The macrosystem indirectly influences the child because it affects each of the other contextual levels. For example, cultural beliefs about the value of education (macrosystem) influence funding decisions made at national and local levels (exosystem), as well as what happens in the classroom and in the home