A Dynamic Systems Perspective on Arenas of Comfort, the Self-system, and Motivation
Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck
Carrie Furrer
Ellen A. Skinner
The ability to predict, and eventually optimize, adolescent development requires an
understanding of the contribution of the contexts in which young people live, and especially how
social interactions within those contexts shape development (Kindermann & Skinner, 1992).
Today there is recognition of the multiple types and levels of contexts that exist simultaneously,
all having the potential to influence individual development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Many
developmentalists also expect that the contexts in which adolescents develop are dynamically
related, hierarchically organized, interdependent, and that they serve co-regulatory and
compensatory functions. The goal of this paper will be to describe a model of individual
development that combines a dynamic systems perspective with two recent theoretical
approaches – arenas of comfort (Call & Mortimer, 2001) and the self-system model of
motivational development (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner & Wellborn, 1994).
The original conception of arenas of comfort (Simmons & Blyth, 1987) highlights the
benefits that are accrued when an adolescent is comfortable (i.e., at ease with self, high degree of
fit with environment, moderate arousal) in some contexts and roles. Comfort experienced in one
context buffers the effects of stress experienced in another context, thereby promoting adaptive
developmental outcomes. The arenas of comfort concept emphasizes a social approach to the
study of the self, coping, and development, but also contains motivational elements evidenced
through the recognition that adolescents seek and select certain contexts to increase their
comfort. The self-system model of motivational development also posits a transactional
relationship between individuals and their contexts, which shape individual and developmental
outcomes (Connell & Wellborn, 1991), but defines specific aspects of the context and the self
that may be associated with comfort. This model proposes that particular contextual elements
assist individuals in meeting three basic psychosocial needs.
Viewing these two theoretical approaches from a dynamic systems perspective brings into
focus the importance of understanding the dynamic exchange of resources between person and
context, the organizing principles (e.g., higher-order needs) that structure such exchanges, and
the development of both individuals and contexts as outcomes of system co-regulation. We will
draw from the dynamic systems perspective and the self-system model of motivational
development to extend the concept of arenas of comfort by making the elements of a comfortable
context and the meaning of an adolescent’s experience of comfort more explicit, by forming
empirically testable hypotheses regarding why some arenas are more comfortable than others
both across and within developmental time frames, and by highlighting the dynamic reciprocity
that exists between an individual and his/her multiple contexts. We will describe several
propositions regarding organization, balance, interdependence, and compensation between
contexts, and how such processes can have an impact on adolescent development and
functioning. We will discuss potential links between arenas of comfort, stress, coping,
resilience, self-perceptions, and optimal development, providing examples of how portions of
this model were tested within the school context drawing from our study of the development of
perceived control with the classroom (Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Connell, 1998). We will
also propose empirical extensions to the peer domain (Zimmer-Gembeck, 1999).
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward and experimental ecology of human development,
American Psychologist, July 1977, 513-531.
Call, K.T., & Mortimer, J.T. (2001). Arenas of comfort in adolescence: A study of
adjustment in context. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self
Process and Development: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Development (Vol. 23).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 43-77.
Kindermann, T. A., & Skinner, E. A. (1992). Modeling environmental development:
Individual and contextual trajectories. In J.B. Asendorpf, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Stability and
Change in Development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 155-190.
Simmons, R.G. and Blyth, D.A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal
change and school context. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
Skinner, E.A., & Wellborn, J.G. (1994). Coping during childhood and adolescence. In D.L.
Featherman, R.M. Lerner, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Life-Span Development and Behavior: Vol.
12. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Skinner, E.A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., & Connell, J.P. (1998). Individual differences and
the development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Child Development (Serial
No. 254, Vol. 63, Nos. 2-3).
Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J. (1999). Stability, change, and individual differences in
involvement with friends and romantic partners among adolescent females. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 28, 419-438.