Still Misused After All These Years? A Reevaluation of the Uses of Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Theory of Human Development A theoretical review published in 2009 revealed that scholars who stated that their research was based on Urie Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory of human development rarely used it appropriately.To what extent has the situation changed since then? We used the same methods to identify relevant articles as had been used in the 2009 article and found 20 publications whose authors explicitly claimed that Bronfenbrenner provided the theoretical foundation for their study. Although 18 of those publications included citations to the mature (mid-1990s) version of Bronfenbrenner's theory, only two appropriately described, tested, and evaluated the four major concepts of Bronfenbrenner's theory-proximal processes, person characteristics, context, and time. Failure either to correctly describe the theory or to critically test its central concepts poses significant problems for the future of family studies and developmental science. We discuss potential ways to improve this situation through metatheoretical, methodological, and pedagogical reflections.

Although Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory is heavily cited, one of its major conceptsproximal processes-has received relatively little attention. We explore the definition and properties of proximal process as the "engines of development," analyze how proximal processes are distinguished from Bronfenbrenner's discussions of "process," and consider whether proximal processes are always positive. Bronfenbrenner viewed proximal processes as having positive effects on development (by increasing competency or buffering dysfunction); to expand this concept, we propose the notion of inverse proximal processes, which in higher levels produce dysfunction and reduce competency. In keeping with Bronfenbrenner's thinking, these inverse proximal processes would have stronger effects in disadvantaged environments. We thus offer a broader framework for understanding the impact of everyday activities and interactions occurring over time in human

The expression of gratitude by children and young adolescents in different societies is the topic of this special issue. We introduce the concept of gratitude as a virtue, explaining its differences from gratitude viewed as a positive emotion. Although most research on gratitude uses samples from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies (primarily from the United States), we discuss the importance of studying the development of gratitude across different cultural groups. Despite the evidence to suggest that the expression of gratitude is viewed as desirable across multiple societies and historical periods, there is no reason to assume that developmental pathways found in one or other WEIRD society would be found in non-WEIRD societies or that the latter would have similar pathways. Children's gratitude expression across countries is explored in this special issue using Baumgarten-Tramer's (1938) paradigm as well as Kağıtçıbaşı's (2007) framework to address both differences and similarities across cultures.

This study aimed to examine children's expression of gratitude in Brazil, China, Guatemala, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. Participants (N = 2,265) consisted of 7-to 14-year-olds (M = 10.56, SD = 2.09; 54.4% girls). Using hierarchical cluster analysis, we found four clusters of gratitude expression: (a) Russia and Turkey (moderate-high expression of connective, low concrete, and moderate verbal gratitude), (b) Brazil and the United States (low connective, higher rates of concrete, and moderate-high rates of verbal gratitude), (c) China and South Korea (higher rates of connective, lower concrete, and lower-moderate verbal gratitude), and (d) Guatemala (lower rates of concrete and connective gratitude, and higher rates of verbal gratitude). In addition, we found common trends in age-related differences for verbal and concrete gratitude among most societies. These findings support the argument for diligence in avoiding implicit generalizations based on research conducted mostly in Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic (WEIRD) societies.

No abstract