The Social-Ecological Model (SEM) by Urie Bronfenbrenner examines how environmental systems affect human development. SEM examines complex human interactions, relationships, communities, and social issues. Again, it considers behavior impacted by multiple elements, including interpersonal, organizational, social, public policy, and individual traits. Also, SEM shows that human behavior changes the social environment. Layered structures connect culture and belief systems to local environments like home and school. Besides, several factors may cause domestic violence. Personal beliefs that favor abuse and interpersonal traits that exacerbate conflict are examples. Again, institutional support services are lacking, and disarray, poverty, and cultural gender roles tend to be dominant. Thus, the social-ecological model shows how many ecological factors affect social conditions and behavior, essential for understanding public health and social issues. It also makes it possible to conduct thorough analyses and take calculated steps across several systems to improve community empowerment, reduce topics like violence, and promote health. The SEM is a critical principle influencing research and practice in public health, psychology, and Social Work.
The Social Ecological Model
To begin with, there are several layers of influence on human behavior and development in the social-ecological model. The immediate, in-person environments that people interact with, such as work, school, family, or peer groups, are termed the microsystem. In these tight surroundings, roles, connections, and activities impact behavior. Thus, an abusive relationship marked by severe conflict, for instance, would be treated as a component of the microsystem. An abusive relationship between a husband and a wife, where the husband gets violent with his wife, is an example of the microsystem. In addition, the linkages between different microsystem settings, such as the one between home and school, make up the mesosystem. In the classroom environment, a kid who sees domestic violence at home may demonstrate troublesome behavior (Germain & Knight, 2020). Also, a kid who experiences violence from their home is likely to have poor relations with their peers and might also develop psychological traumas, which would be hard to heal, even in old age. Thus, the mesosystem explores the interconnections and impacts of various areas of life on behaviors.
Additionally, the term “exosystem layer” indicates settings or social institutions that do not directly affect a person but do so indirectly. A person’s microsystem may be impacted positively or badly by various elements, such as social networks, government agencies, mass media, poverty in the neighborhood, and local conditions. One facet of the exosystem that may make problems like domestic abuse worse is unemployment or a lack of resources in the community (Ler et al., 2020). Unemployment leads to poverty in communities, which causes families to experience bouts of violence, especially where married people do not understand the dynamics of good communication since they always blame their partners when they fail to provide for their families.
Besides, the macro system studies the prevalent socioeconomic situations, belief systems, and ideologies that determine how the other levels interact. In addition, macrosystemic elements that reinforce male dominance in relationships or offer justification for abuse include attitudes and traditions that favor domestic violence. In most communities, especially those that still hold on to their traditional norms, domestic violence is usually overlooked as they typically tend to support it as an act of discipline. The chronosystem also examines how life events impact development (Claussen et al., 2020). Exposure to domestic abuse early in life or later in adulthood has different effects on specific individuals who experience or witness the abuse. Such effects include depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, eating disorders, and dissociative identity disorder.
Domestic Violence Practice Application
Understanding domestic violence and its complex causes is easier with the social-ecological model. At the microsystem level, abuse victim and abuser psychological traits, behavioral patterns, and personal histories are considered. This includes assessing attitudes, coping mechanisms, and violence history. Again, the mesosystem addresses marital conflict, power conflicts, poor communication, and partner behavior modeling that may lead to abuse. It also examines how family and friends may condone or promote/support violence and the survivor’s social support system. In addition, the exosystem also considers poverty, unemployment, and solitude. Lack of social services or victim protection legislation may exacerbate domestic violence (Ler et al., 2020). Hence, the mesosystem explores how institutions, communities, and neighborhoods indirectly promote or discourage violence.
Furthermore, at the macrosystem level, cultural norms, societal attitudes, and belief systems that condone domestic abuse are addressed. These norms promote victim blaming and legitimate violence against women and reinforce male control in relationships. Male control is usually one-sided, and whether the female is right or wrong is not considered. Therefore, action is needed to modify gender roles, social narratives, and cultural attitudes. SEM treatments use individual counseling and education to change ecological dynamics. Also, creating strong social support networks, altering institutions and social and legal policies, and promoting cultural change also do this (Gausman et al., 2020). Thus, the method provides a comprehensive understanding and treatment of domestic abuse.
Implications in Social Work Practice
The socio-ecological paradigm has numerous significant repercussions for social work practice when treating cases of domestic abuse. First, it fosters rigorous assessments that gather information from micro, meso, exo, and macro systems. The SEM does so to completely appreciate clients’ issues and hazards in various aspects of their lives, which guides intervention and case planning. Second, the approach helps transform individual, relationship, communal, and societal behavior. An example of such behavior is promoting or supporting abuse of women and gender violence in general (Claussen et al., 2020). As a result, social workers may advise individuals, build connections, alter institutions, and impact culture at all levels.
Moreover, according to the SEM, domestic violence prevention should also be ecological. Cross-sectoral collaboration to address structural hazards, including poverty, school conflict resolution programs, community initiatives challenging gender stereotypes, and policies helping at-risk families, are examples. Fourth, recognizing the interconnected causes of domestic violence helps social workers, health professionals, law enforcement, legal services, educators, and community leaders collaborate. All professions require coordination, and the SEM advises social workers to promote, educate, and act on social justice (Claussen et al., 2020). Therefore, social workers may advocate and educate on local, state, and federal policy changes.
In conclusion, social workers understand complicated psychological difficulties like domestic abuse using the socio-ecological paradigm. Also, the Social Exchange Model (SEM) facilitates evaluation, prevention, and multisystem interventions. The SEM also shows how related elements impact human behavior at the individual, interpersonal, communal, societal, and chronosystem levels. Thus, social justice concerns like gender inequality that allow abuse are also addressed. Therefore, SEM may help social workers assess, intervene, prevent, form partnerships, and promote justice and nonviolence at all ecological levels. This allows integrated, evidence-based practice from micro to macro for client empowerment, community change, and domestic violence reduction.
References
Claussen, C., Matejko, E., & Exner-Cortens, D. (2022). Exploring risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence across the social-ecological model: A systematic scoping review of reviews. Frontiers in psychiatry, 13, 933433.
Gausman, J., Othman, A., Dababneh, A., Dabobe, M., Hamad, I., Daas, I., & Langer, A. (2020). A social-ecological examination into the research, policy, and health service delivery environment related to early marriage and sexual and gender-based violence among youth in Jordan. BMC international health and human rights, 20, 1-19.
Germain, C., & Knight, C. (2020). The life model of social work practice: Advances in theory and practice. Columbia University Press.
Ler, P., Sivakami, M., & Monárrez-Espino, J. (2020). Prevalence and factors associated with intimate partner violence among young women aged 15 to 24 years in India: a social-ecological approach. Journal of interpersonal violence, 35(19-20), 4083-4116.