Psycho-Social Theories: Maternal Mental Health Comparison Essay

This essay delves into the realm of maternal mental health, contrasting two prominent psychological and social theories: the bio-ecological systems theory and symbolic interactionism. It begins by defining maternal mental health, emphasizing the emotional, psychological, and well-being aspects affecting pregnant women and new mothers. The essay then provides detailed outlines of both theories, explaining Bronfenbrenner's bio-ecological systems theory, which examines the influence of various environmental systems on child development, and symbolic interactionism, a sociological perspective focusing on how individuals create meaning through social interaction. The core of the essay compares these two theories in the context of maternal mental health, highlighting their different assumptions, methodologies, and implications for understanding the factors influencing a mother's mental state. The comparison covers the role of individual meanings, social interactions, and the impact of the surrounding environment. The essay also explores the cognitive processes involved in social interaction and the significance of self-identity within these theoretical frameworks. Ultimately, it summarizes the comparison, emphasizing the social and psychological factors that shape human behavior and the environment's role in influencing the development of maternal mental health. This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of these theories and their relevance to maternal mental health.

Running Head : PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
Maternal mental health: Bio-ecological systems theory versus Symbolic interactionism.
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
Brief Outline of the Concept of Maternal Mental Health:
The mental health of any person in the generalized manner refers to the emotional,
pscylogical and the status of the wellbeing of the individuals that can influence any pregnant
woman and the condition of the new mother in her feelings and functions. The World Health
Organization will redefine the context of mental health as the state of the mental health or as the
state of wellbeing in which the individual will realize their abilities that can be coped up with the
normal stress of life which will enable them to work in the in the most productive manner in
order to make significant contributions to her community (Crawford et.al 2019).
Specifically in the context of the maternal mental health mainly stresses upon the
prevalence of the causes of depression during the period of pregnancy. This problem today has
affected one fifth of the women around the globe. The antenatal form of the depression that is
prevalent among the women that will pose the major risk in the post natal period of depression
which is the continuation of the depression that begins in the antenatal phase of pregnancy
(Riordan and Warren 2019).
The maternal health also encompasses the support provided to the pregnant women in
order to build or maintain the level of resilience and develop the several coping strategies in
order to promote the wellbeing level as the most significant aspect of the maternity healthcare.
The resilience level will help the pregnant women to manage their levels of stress and anxiety
and to reduce the fear that is associated at the time of the childbirth and to help them in the
maintenance of the health and well being during their motherhood phase of transition. Therefor it
is very important to consider the promotion of the standards of the well being and the ways in

2PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
which the level of well being will be maintained in providing the continuity of the care programs
(Brady 2019).
Brief Outline of the Bio ecological systems theory
The theory of the Bio Ecological systems has been formulated by the American
psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner who through this theory tried to explain the inherent qualities
of the children and their surrounding environments in the ways of their interaction that will
influence the rate of the growth and the development of the children. The Bio ecological systems
theory typically places the children enmeshed in the strata of their ecosystems from their most
intimate system of the ecological system which also include the society and its cultural aspects
(Hertler et.al 2018).
The bio ecological systems theory also frames the aspects of the ecological perspectives
of the larger and the holistic system of the school and to the most expansive form of the societal
culture. Each ecological system will show an inevitable form of interaction along with the
influence of the aspects of the people in the lives of their children. . The mesosystem of the bio
ecological system describes and evaluates the different aspects of the microsystem of any child
as they work together for the development of their children (Gan et.al 2019).The level of the
exosystem will include the different people and will place the child amidst the large effects of the
children’s workplaces, the extended members of their family and their surrounding
neighbourhood. The final level or the macrosystem is the largest and here the people have a far
better great influence over the development of their children. The macrosystem will include the
factors like the national governance and the cultural values embedded , along with their type of
economy , the wars fought and other such related factors (McLinden, Mccall and Hodges 2019).

3PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
Model of the Bio Ecological systems theory (www.PsychologyNotesHQ.com )
The bio ecological model of Bronfenbrenner stresses on the organized form of the
contexts of development into the different levels of the external influence. These levels are
categorized as the child which lies in at the core strata or the microsystem of the ecological
systems theory. Above the layer of the child lies the mesosystem that comprises of the
connections and the interactions among them. The third layer from the core comprise of the
indirect environmental aspects in the ecosystem layer (Henricson 2016). The macrosystem

4PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
includes the inherent aspects of the social and the cultural values embedded in it and the last
layer lies the Chronosystem that covers the aspects that are associated with the changes occurring
over the different periods of time. The microsystem level of the bio ecological model system
influence the development in the children that will include the microsystem pattern, the level of
the mesosystem and the exosystem. The microsystem stage is defined as the small and the
immediate environment where the child first lives. The microsystems of the children includes the
interaction among the organizations and their level of interaction among the individuals (Blumer
2018).
Symbolic Interactionism
The concept of symbolic interactionism refers to the sociological theory that will develop
from the several practical considerations and the and utilization of the implications for the level
of deduction and the correspondence level with the other members. The symbolic interactionism
also includes the level of the frame of reference to better evaluate the interaction among the
individuals to interact with each other in order to create a symbolic world that will subsequently
shape the individual behavioral pattern. The framework of the symbolic interactionism helps in
the understanding of the process of the preservation of the society in particular and its creation
and to foster the shared meanings of the objects and the concepts attached to them (Carter and
Fuller 2016).
The assumptions of the symbolic interactionism rests on the premise that that the physical
form of the reality exist in the social dimensions of the individuals and that the different social
definitions will develop as a part of the relationship to be something ‘real’. People thus never
respond to the reality in the direct manner rather responds to the social understanding level of the

5PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
reality that is prevalent among the individuals (Boon 2016).The three assumptions that can be
highlighted from the symbolic interactionism are :
First, the construction of the meaning by the individuals via the process of communication
present in that situation.
Second,The self-concept approach that provides the motivation for the individual type of
behavior.
Third, the unique relationship pattern that will exist between the individual and the society where
they live (Vannini 2016).
Maternal mental health: Comparison between Bio-ecological systems theory
versus Symbolic interactionism
In order to study the comparison between the two aspects of the bio ecological systems
theory and the symbolic interactions level, we need to first evaluate the premises. The first
premise for evaluating the comparison level is the action of humans towards certain things on the
basis of the meanings attached to those things. The first premise highlights on the inclusion of
the factors that the humans take a note within the domain of their physical world that includes
the physical objects , their actions and the concepts attached to the symbolic interactionism
approach. Essentially, in this context the individuals’ behavior towards the objects and the others
are based on the personal meanings attached to their social life. The emphasis has been more on
the pattern of the individual behaviors , along with their psychological and the sociological
explanations for their actions and the behaviors shown by them (Denzin 2016).
The second premise highlights the process of the social interaction among the humans
sharing the same society. Their response is however not made in direct response to the actions

6PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
that is based on their behaviors. Therefore, we can say the process of the human interaction is
mediated often by the use of the specific symbols , their associated significance and the
interpretation pattern of one another’s actions (Rock 2016).
The symbolic level of the interaction among the different humans of a society describes
the process of thinking as the inner conversation medium, where role taking plays the most
crucial role that will permit the people to see each other’s perspectives in order to understand the
actions of the different people. However the improvisational quality roles of the different
individuals follows the burden of the role making procedure along with the proactive participants
of the environment where they live. There is an improvisational quality of the actors to take on
the role that they follow. Because of this uncertainty of the roles attached with individuals the
burden falls on the more proactive participants of the society (Chang et.al 2018).
The comparison is more evident in the light of the dimensions of the analysis of the
position and the role of the different individuals living in the society. The critics of the
mainstream society has highlighted that the differences among the individuals persist and the
difference has been compounded with the more radical form of the argument of phenomology
and the ethnomethodology concepts. In drawing the comparison, the first significant factor to
consider is the possibility of talking the roles by the different individuals present in the society.
The answer to this question rests on the set of the different cognitive processes to sustain the
context of the social structure and its associated units. This signifies that the members inhabiting
a society must aquire the competence level to assign a crucial meaning to their surrounding
environment (McLinden et.al 2017).
The cognitive procedures on the assumptions consider the social interaction process that
should be made possible by the individuals. The individuals in this situation may assume the

7PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
assumptions related to the social interaction among them in the society. The individuals must
consider the reciprocity of the associated perspectives between themselves and their potential
partners present. Similar such cognitive procedures will constitute the mental module that will be
directed towards the generation of the appropriate and the innovative form of the responses in
the changing scenario of the circumstances despite the fact that only fragmentary and the
uncertain form of the evidence is available with the people living in the society (Stryker 2017).
The symbolic interaction in the bio ecological systems has emphasized more on the
significance of the self evaluation and the process of self identification. There has been more
emphasis on the idea of ‘self’ that becomes increasingly conceptualized by the series of the
individual identities that the individuals verify through their interactions and thereby experience
the positive or the negative set of the emotions by the different individuals. TO a certain extent,
the varied levels of the identity among the individuals occur in the society or in the bio
ecological system. The comparison between the bio ecological systems and the interactionist
theory can therefore be summarized in the following ways:
 The human being must be considered as the social person. It must be assumed that being
a social creature he is in constant search of the needed social interaction that results in
the focusing of the individuals and their individual traits of the personality on how the
particular human behavior is caused by the society or the particular societal situation
present,
 The humans must be considered as the thinking being in the context of the interaction
among the individuals and also for the level of interaction within the societal sphere of
any individual. The humans in the societal context often neglect the sensing patterns of
the environment in the most direct manner and allows the individuals to define the

8PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
situation where they have to act. The cause of the actions of the humans is the result of
the different events that occur in the present situation.
Finally, it can be said that the human beings in the interaction context are described as the most
active beings in relation to their surrounding environment. In contrast to the other socio scientific
perspectives humans are considered to be the passive agents in relation to their surroundings as
they are actively involved in their present actions.

9PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
References
Blumer, H., 2018. Symbolic interaction. In Interdisciplinary Approaches to Human
Communication (pp. 135-154). Routledge.
Boon, H.J., 2016. Rationale for the use of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory to
examine resilience. In Disasters and social resilience (pp. 28-48). Routledge.
Brady, S.E., 2019. Meeting the Needs of Migrants: Applying the Bioecological Systems Theory
Model to Assess Multicultural Competency in Mental Health (Doctoral dissertation, Tennessee
State University).
Carter, M.J. and Fuller, C., 2016. Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of
symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology, 64(6), pp.931-961.
Chang, X., Wang, H., Guo, D., & Cui, Z. (2018). The Philosophical Basis of Social Turning of
Embodied Cognition From the Perspective of Symbolic Interactionism. Philosophy Study, 8(7),
309-314.
Crawford, B.F., Snyder, K.E. and Adelson, J.L., 2019. Exploring obstacles faced by gifted
minority students through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. High Ability Studies,
pp.1-32.
Denzin, N.K., 2016. Symbolic interactionism. The international encyclopedia of communication
theory and philosophy, pp.1-12.
Gan, J.Q., Lim, J.D.Z.Y. and Lim, M.L., 2019. A holistic view on youth runaway via the
bioecological systems theory.
Henricson, E.K., 2016. Use of a bioecological systems theory framework to characterize
clinically-meaningful person-reported outcome measures of strength, function and quality of life
for individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. University of California, Davis.

10PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL THEORY
Hertler, S.C., Figueredo, A.J., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M. and Fernandes, H.B., 2018. Urie
Bronfenbrenner: Toward an Evolutionary Ecological Systems Theory. In Life History Evolution
(pp. 323-339). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
McLinden, M., Mccall, S. and Hodges, L., 2019. Learning Through Touch: Supporting Learners
with Multiple Disabilities and Vision Impairment Through a Bioecological Systems Perspective.
Routledge.
McLinden, M., Ravenscroft, J., Douglas, G., Hewett, R. and Cobb, R., 2017. The significance of
specialist teachers of learners with visual impairments as agents of change: Examining personnel
preparation in the United Kingdom through a bioecological systems theory. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 111(6), pp.569-584.
Riordan, N.O. and Warren, S., 2019. Advancing ISD Education Research with Bioecological
Systems Theory. In Advances in Information Systems Development (pp. 1-17). Springer, Cham.
Rock, P., 2016. Making of symbolic interactionism. Springer.
Stryker, S., 2017. Symbolic interactionism: Themes and variations. In Social psychology (pp. 3-
29). Routledge.
Vannini, P., 2016. Body/embodiment: Symbolic interaction and the sociology of the body.
Routledge.