Discussion

The adolescent is the unique periods of development, which shapes every individual as the person they are parents, have the critical and central influence in the health and psychic of their young children. A number of sanctuary advances in the ecological study of human growth and developments suggested that interaction with the immediate surroundings and the environment of living effetely influence the psychological well-being of a child. Bronfenbrenner’s theory defined that complex layer of environment has influences on the physical and psychological well-being. The interaction between factors in childhood maturing biology, his immediate family and community, social landscape fuels and steers his development as an adult. Changes or conflict in one of the layer ripples throughout the layer. The case study represents such behavior of childhood development of a 12yeras old Justin. His Mother, gill narrated that his behavior was aggressive and getting worse. Gill also narrated that his behavior difficult to manage but getting worse over the past six months. Gill also suggested that the separation has an effect on the Austin. Therefore, this paper will illustrate the factors that negatively impacted the well being of Justin with the assistance of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, strengths, resources and protective factors of the Justin family and Possible approaches to facilitating greater wellbeing and person in following paragraphs.

As observed in the case study, Gill was asking help to manage the behavior of her 12 years old child Justin. She described that the Justin tend to become aggressive and his behavior is getting worse even with his siblings. She also informed that due to his aggressive behavior, he was suspended from the school. Urie Bronfenbrenner, the Russian-born American developmental psychologist, developed ecological systems theory of child development, which suggested that in order to study the childhood; one must not only consider the immediate environment of a child but also look into the interaction of the larger environment as well (Hope & Spencer, 2017). According to the theory, the first environment is microenvironment, the closest layer of the child which encompasses the relationship and interactions of a child with her immediate environment which includes family school, neighborhood (Bronfenbrenner, 2018). In the context of the case study, the assumed prime reason for his different psychological is his family. As described in the case study, Justin was close to his father, he was “daddy’s boy”. Therefore, the separation reduced the close contact with his father, which in turn affected the parent-child bond. According to Hertler et al. (2018), the child feels less close to his father, which negatively impacted his psychological well being and resulted in turn separation anxiety and aggressive behavior (Sallis, Owen, & Fisher, 2015). Mesosystem represents the connection between the structures of the child’s Microsystems. Ecosystem represents a larger social system such as work pace of parent or community-based family resources where child does not interact directly but influences the development of the childhood (Payir et al., 2017). In the context of the case study, gill narrated that she had a successful career after the birth of Justin but she repented for placing him in childcare since Justin might needed his mother in his early years of development. In the early years of childhood development, infants needed their primary caregiver which is mother of the child (Eriksson, Ghazinour, & Hammarström, 2018). Despite receiving good care in childcare and from grandparents, the lack of close contact with immediate family members impacted his psychological well being of the child (Cohen & Waite-Stupiansky, 2017). The lack of close contact installs a feeling of abandonment in the child, which resulted in aggressive behavior, and feeling of anger in the child (McCartney, 2018). His mother prohibited him to meet his father, which negatively impacted his psychological wellbeing. It gave rise to the sense of hatred towards his mother. Kinder said he had a lot of trouble in the first week of separation and settling now. Moreover, marital conflict, which is accompanied by divorce, places the social behavior of the child at risk (Follari, 2015). Since Justin was daddy’s boy and  he was close to his father compared to his mother, after separation he was not comfortable with the father being with the other woman because it hindered him to spend time with his father alone and he hated to see his father in a weekend. Macrosystem also impacted the well-being of a child since this layer comprised of cultural values, customs, and laws (Winnick & Porretta,  2016). It says that the cultural believes impacted the proper raising of a child. Gill suggested they did not have active involvement with the church but whenever they went to church Justin refuse to go to church since he lacks the basic cultural values. Since adolescence is the life period between childhoods, adulthood where the transition between parental dependence to relative anatomy occurs. All of these incidents negatively impacted his well-being, and he was in emotional turmoil, lacks the flexibility to adapt in changing socio-cultural demands that resulted in unusual behavior (Meltzer, 2018). His report card suggested that he was not achieving well and lagging behind other kids. He bullied other kids and he was reluctant to meet workers when his family members are present, rather agreed to interact with workers alone (Thomas, 2015). However, he involved in sports such as football and cricket and Fred actively involved with the administration of Justin’s football club, where his accounting skills are valued.

Factors that affected the wellbeing of Justin

Children of divorce families reported more internalizing and externalizing problem behavior compared to children continuously married parents. Research shows that a possible cause for this increased problem behavior (Gabriel,  2017). Protective behavior, on the other hand, predicts a positive outcome. These protective factors mostly observed in the family environment of the child or immediate surroundings of the child, which predicts the positive outcome (Woodhead, 2015). Both include the literal surroundings and close relationship with other family members. From the above analysis of the case, it was observed that the separation of the parent and losing contact with father greatly affected his psychic and gave rise to the aggressive behavior (Woodhead, 2015). However, there are certain protective factors of Austin family described in the case study. Despite the separation of the parent of Justin, he received superior care in his early childhood which is one of the strengths of the family (Gabriel,  2017).  Grandparents of the Justin play a massive role in well being of the Justin. Gill narrated that her parents had taken care of Justin and other children while she was working as a teacher. Support from the extended family members positively associated social functioning and an increased feeling of belongingness (Winnick & Porretta,  2016).  Financials support of Fred in the family is one of the protective factors that positively influence the immediate environment of Justin. This reduces the loneliness of Justin because he got chances to meet his father weekly (Follari, 2015).  Moreover, gill lives with the child in the family home, which is comfortable and well to do part of the town. Social support of friends, family, and community is the strength of the Austin family. These protective factors have the contribution of shaping the cognitive behavior of a child and which also represents the baseline behavior of a child (Winnick & Porretta,  2016). Social support from friends and other family members may buffer children from the negative outcomes of parental divorce (Follari, 2015). Moreover, Justin is actively involved in sporting clubs of cricket and football; he maintained his involvement by involving in playing those sports.  Since Justin is connected with his father compared to other family members, his father Fred is actively involved with Justin’s football club where his accounting skills are valued. His father involvement gave him a sense of security and influenced his wellbeing (Follari, 2015).

Divorce and separation have a direct impact on children’s development of cognitive behavior. Children experience divorce deeply and personally which has huge potential for short-term negative consequences such as aggression, bully, reluctant to interact with family members (Follari, 2015). A study by Alfonso et al. (2017), suggested that while parental divorce poses a significant risk for children that introduce concern, these outcomes are not same for all children and many parental controlling factors can reduce the risk of unusual behavior of the children and promote children’s resilience. As observed in this case study, she described that the Justin tend to become aggressive and his behavior is getting worse even with his siblings. One of the prime factors behind is that the separation with his father negatively influenced his psychological behavior, which resulted in aggressive behavior. Parenting through a divorce is difficult for gill since she is working. There are several valuable types of research, which suggested the roles of both parents are inevitable in providing an accurate environment for well being of children (Blair, Zelazo,  & Greenberg, 2016). In this context, since Justin did not like the idea of his father meeting him once, the ideal environment for him is where he would be able to meet his father. Instead of meeting him once in a week, if he gets the opportunity to meet his father three or four days a week then he would be able to spend with more time with his father(Blair, Zelazo,  & Greenberg, 2016). Consequently, the sense of aggression will decrease within him and his bond with his father, which was lost due to parental separation (Follari, 2015). Moreover, gill was not able to able to give enough attention in his early childhood, which greatly influenced his wellbeing (Follari, 2015). Therefore, if she spent some quality time with him rather than leaving the responsibility to the childcare and her parents then it will improve his mental wellbeing and reduce the aggressive behavior.  Conflicts between both the parents give rise to the emotional turmoil in children, therefore; prevention of any personal conflict gill and Fred will provide Justin a safe environment for developing his normal cognitive skills (Winnick & Porretta,  2016). According to Follari (2015), cooperative parenting is proceeded to be effective for the children who are coping with the divorce. In this context, despite the separation cooperation from both the ends of Gill and Fred in managing behavior of Justin will enhance the psychological well being of Justin by increasing bonding with both the parents (Gabriel, 2017). His parents take an effective part in providing Justin a safe environment for living and mental wellbeing. According to Thomas (2015), children with high sibling, support lowers the conflict and reduce the reluctance of interacting with the family members.

Protective factors of Justin’s family

Conclusion:

Thus it can be concluded that Adolescent is the most vulnerable period where the external environment plays crucial role in cognitive development. The case study describes an aggressive behavior of a 12 years child whose mother find it difficult to manage him. Bronfenbrenner’s theory in the ecological study of human growth suggested that the how complex layer of environment shapes cognitive development of an adolescent. His mother, gill narrated that his behavior was aggressive and getting worse. As described in the case study, Justin was close to his father and therefore the separation affected him greatly which resulted in aggressive behavior. There are certain protective factors of Justin’s family that will help him to cope with the state of mind.  In this context, in order to provide ideal environment to just in,  The cooperative parenting, siblings support and lowering parental conflict enhance the mental well being of Justin. Since Justin did not like the idea of his father meeting him once, the ideal environment for him is where he would be able to meet his father. it will give him a sense of security and will provide him a safe environment.

References

Alfonso, V. C., Hughes, T., Clarke, B. L., Rispoli, K. M., Gelbar, N. W., Bilias-Lolis, E., & Bray, M. A. (2017). Perspectives on Early Childhood Psychology and Education.

Blair, C., Zelazo, P. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2016). Measurement of Executive Function in Early Childhood: A Special Issue of Developmental Neuropsychology. Psychology Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2018). Urie Bronfenbrenner: Learning Context. Learning Theories for Early Years Practice, 66.

Cohen, L. E., & Waite-Stupiansky, S. (Eds.). (2017). Theories of Early Childhood Education: Developmental, Behaviorist, and Critical. Taylor & Francis.

Eriksson, M., Ghazinour, M., & Hammarström, A. (2018). Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: what is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice?. Social Theory & Health, 16(4), 414-433.

Follari, L. (2015). Foundations and best practices in early childhood education: History, theories, and approaches to learning. Pearson Higher Education AU.

Gabriel, N. (2017). Growing Up in Society–A Historical Social Psychology of Childhood. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 207-226.

Hertler, S. C., Figueredo, A. J., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., & Fernandes, H. B. (2018). Urie Bronfenbrenner: Toward an Evolutionary Ecological Systems Theory. In Life History Evolution (pp. 323-339). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Hope, E. C., & Spencer, M. B. (2017). Civic engagement as an adaptive coping response to conditions of inequality: An application of phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST). In Handbook on positive development of minority children and youth (pp. 421-435). Springer, Cham.

McCartney, N. (2018). Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Job-Related Well-Being: Examining Protective Factors on Stress and Burnout (Doctoral dissertation).

Meltzer, L. (Ed.). (2018). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. Guilford Publications.

Payir, A., Liang, Y., Merçon-Vargas, E. A., & Tudge, J. R. (2017). The Importance of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory for Early Childhood Education. In Theories of Early Childhood Education (pp. 45-57). Routledge.

Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. (2015). Ecological models of health behavior. Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice, 5, 43-64.

Thomas, D. (2015). The social psychology of childhood disability. Psychology Press.

Winnick, J., & Porretta, D. (Eds.). (2016). Adapted Physical Education and Sport, 6E. Human Kinetics.

Woodhead, M. (2015). Psychology and the cultural construction of children’s needs. In Constructing and reconstructing childhood (pp. 72-91). Routledge.