Personal Construct Methodology

Personal Construct Methodology

Personal Construct Methodology Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden

This edition first published 2012 Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wiley-Blackwell is an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, formed by the merger of Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business with Blackwell Publishing. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Personal construct methodology/edited by Peter Caputi ... [et al.]. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-0-470-77087-0 (hbk.) – ISBN 978-1-119-95416-3 (pbk.) – ISBN 978-1-119-97962-3 (ePDF) – ISBN 978-1-119-97961-6 (Wiley Online Library) 1. Personal construct theory. 2. Social sciences–Statistical methods. I. Caputi, Peter. BF698.9.P47P47 2011 150.19’85–dc23 2011023531 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDFs 9781119953623; ePub 9781119953326; eMobi 9781119953333 Set in 10.5pt/13pt Minion by Thomson Digital, Noida, India 1

2012

This book is dedicated to Antonio – for reminding us that the essential elements of life are to love, to be loved and to seize and live each day.

Contents

About the Editors List of Contributors Preface Acknowledgments

ix xi xv xvii

PART I: SETTING THE SCENE 1 Assessment of Personal Constructs: Features and Functions of Constructivist Techniques Heather Gaines Hardison and Robert A. Neimeyer 2 Qualitative Methods in Personal Construct Research: A Set of Possible Criteria Linda L. Viney and Sue Nagy

3

53

PART II: QUALITATIVE APPROACHES: EXPLORING PROCESS 3 The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden

71

4 The ABC Model Revisited Finn Tschudi and David Winter

89

5 The Self-Characterization Technique: Uses, Analysis and Elaboration Nadia Crittenden and Chantel Ashkar

109

6 Experience Cycle Methodology: A Method for Understanding the Construct Revision Pathway Lindsay G. Oades and Linda L. Viney

129

viii

Contents

PART III: QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES: EXPLORING PROCESS 7 An Introduction to Grid-based Methods Peter Caputi

149

8 Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches Peter Caputi, Richard Bell and Desley Hennessy

159

9 Computer-aided Constructivism Brian R. Gaines and Mildred L.G. Shaw

183

10 Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales Linda L. Viney and Peter Caputi

223

PART IV: METHODS IN COUNSELING AND CLINICAL SETTINGS 11 Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy: A Constructivist Approach Luis Botella and Marıa Gamiz

247

12 Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool within a Personal Construct Framework Heather Foster and Linda L. Viney

269

13 Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents: An Integrated Model 287 Miriam Stein, Elaine Atkinson, and Anne Fraser Index

319

About the Editors

Peter Caputi is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Wollongong. His contributions to measurement issues in Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) have received national and international recognition. This is evidenced by influential papers, as evidenced by citations in two major texts on PCP methodology and theory, and two edited volumes (one already published and one book forthcoming) in the area. Peter is an active reviewer for The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Personal Construct Theory and Practice, Personality and Individual Differences, Australian Journal of Psychology, Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses. He is also on the editorial board of the Journal of Constructivist Psychology and The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied. Since 2000, he has published over 100 peer-reviewed conference papers, journal articles, and book chapters and is currently teaching several statistics based subjects at the University of Wollongong. Linda L. Viney is a Professorial Fellow in the School of Psychology at the University of Wollongong. Linda pioneered the introduction of Personal Construct Psychology in Australia. She is a prolific author having published extensively in the Personal Construct Psychology literature and more generally in clinical, counselling and health psychology. Linda is a past editor of the Australian Psychologist and is currently of the editorial board of the Journal of Constructivist Psychology. Beverly M. Walker is a well-known theorist and researcher in the area of Personal Construct Theory. Her particular focus has been on social relationships, and the kinds of processes involved. These include validation, and modes of dependency on others. With David Winter she published an overview of the approach for the Annual Review of Psychology. She has edited a volume of the Journal of Constructivist Psychology on nonverbal

x

About the Editors

approaches to understanding of construing, with her own focus on the use of photographs. Nadia Crittenden has been an active member of the Personal Construct Psychology Research Group, based in the School of Psychology at the University of Wollongong, for more than 20 years. During this time, she has taught in this area, conducted training workshops, presented and published research, and supervised higher research degrees using PCP research techniques. Dr Crittenden is currently a Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Wollongong.

List of Contributors

Chantel Ashkar Postgraduate Student School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Elaine Atkinson Clinical Psychologist Subiaco, Western Australia, 6008, Australia Richard C. Bell Associate Professor Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Luis Botella Professor Department of Psychology, Ramon Llull University, Cister 24-34, 08022 Barcelona, Spain e-mail: [email protected] Peter Caputi Associate Professor School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Nadia Crittenden Senior Lecturer School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

xii

List of Contributors

Heather Foster University of Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Anne Fraser Clinical Psychologist Kensington, Western Australia, 6151, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Brian R. Gaines Professor Emeritus University of Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada e-mail: [email protected] Maria Gamiz Clinical Psychologist Department of Psychology, Ramon Llull University, Cister 24-34, 08022 Barcelona, Spain e-mail: [email protected] Heather G. Hardison Clinical Psychologist in Private Practice Collierville, Tennessee, 38017, USA e-mail: [email protected] Desley Hennessy Postgraduate Student School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Sue Nagy Adjunct Professor Faculty of Nursing Midwifery and Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, 2068, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Robert A. Neimeyer Professor Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Tennessee, 38152-6400, USA e-mail: [email protected]

List of Contributors

xiii

Dr Lindsay Oades Director Australian Institute of Business Wellbeing Sydney Business School University of Wollongong Mildred L. G. Shaw Professor Emerita University of Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada e-mail: [email protected] Miriam Stein Clinical Psychologist Uclinic, St Margarets Surry Hills, NSW, 2010, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Finn Tschudi Professor (Emeritus) Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Blindern, NO-0317, Norway e-mail: [email protected] Linda L. Viney Professor School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Beverly M. Walker Associate Professor School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia e-mail: [email protected] David Winter Professor School of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, UK e-mail: [email protected]

Preface

In 1955, George Kelly published two volumes titled The Psychology of Personal Constructs that would challenge theorists at that time. The work was innovative, challenging and liberating at a theoretical level. Kelly saw people as adventurers who are capable of experimenting with how they make sense of their lives (Walker & Winter, 2007). Within this framework people are not “locked into” one particular way of seeing the world. By realizing we have the freedom to experiment, we have the ability to explore alternative interpretations of events, people or situations in our world, and thereby increase our ability to anticipate those events, and how people might behave or react in certain situations. Central to this radical and innovative theoretical position is the concept of construing. Kelly’s additional contribution to the psychological literature was the development to methods for assessing construing. Kelly held the view that if you want to know something about someone then you should simply ask them – they may tell you! These methods are usually conversational, but structured in nature (Walker & Winter, 2007). Participants become active co-investigators, along with the administrator of the method, in an exploration of how participants experience, understand and interpret reality. The most well known and widely used of Kelly’s methods is the repertory grid. The repertory grid is used to explore the relationships between a series of elements (things we try to make sense of such as “a close friend”) and a set of constructs or dimensions that are used to make sense of elements. Grid-based techniques are not limited to only exploring the construct-element relationship. For instance, dependency grids are used to sort what resources a person might use in a variety of situations (Walker & Winter, 2007). Personal Construct Psychology also offers users a family of non-grid-based methods. Examples of non-grid-based methods includes Hinkle’s (1955) laddering technique and Kelly’s (1955/1991) self-characterization technique.

xvi

Preface

This book reviews and describes a number of well-known and new gridbased and non-grid-based methods. In addition, a number of chapters describe applications of these techniques in clinical and non-clinical areas. Chapters have been contributed by leading experts from North America, Britain, Europe and Australia which highlights the internationalization of research in Personal Construct Psychology. The book is divided into four sections. The contributions in Section I “set the scene” for the book. Heather Hardison and Robert Neimeyer’s chapter presents an excellent overview of the properties of assessment methods in personal construct psychology. Subsequent chapters in this book complement and expand on the material presented in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, Linda Viney and Sue Nagy present a set of guidelines for non-grid-based approaches. Section II: Qualitative Approaches – Exploring Process includes four chapters describing non-grid based methods for exploring the process of construing. Beverly Walker and Nadia Crittenden describe and illustrate the technique of laddering in Chapter 3, a technique that “is seemingly simple in its description, complex in application, and can be powerful in impact” (Walker & Winter,2007,p. 462).InChapter 4, FinnTschudiandDavid Winter present the ABC method. This technique is useful in understanding why people hesitate to change. Nadia Crittenden and Chantal Ashkar in Chapter 5 describe Kelly’s (1955/1991) self-characterization technique which involves writing an autobiographical piece in the third person. In Chapter 6, Lindsay Oades and Linda Viney describe and illustrate a methodology for understanding the process of construct revision and re-construing. Grid-based approaches have been used extensively in Personal Construct Psychology. Three chapters in Section III: Quantitative Approaches: Exploring Process introduce and illustrate these methods. Peter Caputi provides a brief introduction to grid based methods in Chapter 7. In Chapter 8, Peter Caputi, Richard Bell and Desley Hennessy discuss new and traditional representations of repertory grid data. In Chapter 9, Brian Gaines and Mildred Shaw build on the material in Chapter 8 in their discussion of computer-supported constructivism. Finally, Linda Viney and Peter Caputi expound on their work with content analysis scales developed within a personal construct framework. Section IV consists of three chapters exploring the application of personal construct methods in counseling and clinical settings. In Chapter 11, Luis Botella and Marıa Gamiz illustrate narrative assessment within a personal construct approach. Heather Foster and Linda Viney illustrate the use of drawings in personal construct assessment in their chapter. Finally, Miriam Stein and her colleagues demonstrate how constructivist methods can be used with adolescents in psychotherapy.

Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible but for the generosity of the contributors. Their expertise is reflected in the quality of the chapter that make up this volume. We would like to thank Tim Broady for his work on this book. Finally, we would like to thank Karen Shield and Annie Rose from Wiley-Blackwell, for their patience, professionalism, and compassion. Karen and Annie have been integral to assisting us with preparing and bringing this book to completion. Material in Chapter 10 was reprinted from Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling Research, 34, (2005), 115–126, Ó 2005 The American Counseling Association. Reprinted with permission. Permission was obtained for a slightly modified version of Fig. 1 from The preference axis – ambiguity and complexity in personal construing, Francis, M., Personal Construct Theory and Practice, 1, 104–7, Ó 2004. Reproduced by permission of Prof. Dr. Joern Scheer. Permission was obtained for a slightly modified version of a figure from Winter, D. and Gould, C. (2001). Construing the unthinkable. In J. M. Fisher and N. Cornelius (eds.), Challenging the Boundaries: PCP Perspectives for the New Millennium. Lostock Hall: ECPA Publications. Reproduced by permission of J.M. Fisher, EPCA Publications. Quotes from The Psychology of Personal Constructs, volumes 1 and 2, George Kelly, Ó 1955/1991, Norton and Routlegde were reproduced with permission. Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Books, UK.

Part I

Setting the Scene

1

Assessment of Personal Constructs: Features and Functions of Constructivist Techniques Heather Gaines Hardison and Robert A. Neimeyer The psychology of personal constructs is not so much a theory about man as it is a theory of man . . . It is part of a psychologist’s protracted effort to catch the sense of man going about his business of being human, and what on earth it means to be a person . . . Our theme is the personal adventure of the men we are and live with – the efforts, the enterprises, the ontology of individuals so convinced there is something out there, really and truly, that they will not relent, no matter what befalls them, until they have seized it in their own hands. (Kelly, 1963, p. 183) These thoughts, first written nearly 60 years ago by George Kelly, have since led to various attempts by clinicians, including Kelly himself, to “catch the sense of man” through distinctive assessment tools for use in psychotherapy settings. This chapter will review several of these personal construct assessments and how they have evolved over the past five decades, with special emphasis on their distinctive advantages and limitations as assessment methods. We will begin with an overview of the fundamental principles of Kelly’s theory of personal constructs to provide an explanation of the theoretical framework within which these assessments were created.

Personal Construct Systems: An Overview The guiding assumption of George Kelly’s (1955) personal construct theory (PCT) is that humans literally construct the meaning of their own lives, by Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

4

Personal Construct Methodology

devising, testing, and continuously revising personal theories that help us make sense of the world around us and anticipate our future experiences. These personal theories, called construct systems, are comprised of an indefinite number of personal constructs that help differentiate, integrate, and predict life events. Personal constructs may be highly idiosyncratic or widely shared, and may vary in terms of how central or important they are in construing one’s life (Winter, 1992). According to Kelly’s (1955) view of constructive alternativism, there are countless possible constructions of reality. In other words, events are subject to as many alternative ways of construing them as we ourselves can invent. Thus, personal construct theory describes how each of us uniquely construes or interprets our own world. Constructs, and their interrelationships within a hierarchically organized system, form the basis for hypotheses that guide an individual’s choices and actions (Winter, 1992). Kelly (1955) defined a construct as a particular way individuals have of viewing, giving meaning to, or construing the individuals and events in their life and the world around them. According to personal construct theory, all constructs are “bipolar,” meaning some sort of contrast (e.g., intelligent/ignorant) is implied. The implied contrast gives constructs their uniqueness. Meanings of certain constructs may vary according to the element being construed, and implied constructs may vary across individuals. For example, the contrasting construct of the word “lenient” might be “harsh” to one person and for someone else it might mean “unbending or fixed,” which are rather different meanings. Therefore, even though individuals may draw upon common and publicly shared discriminations in constructing their conceptual templates, they typically develop construct systems that are in some degree idiosyncratic, giving their construct systems a richer personal significance than relying on simple dictionary antonyms. Kelly (1955) proposed that each person constructs his or her own version of reality using a hierarchical system of personal constructs. “Not only are the constructs personal, but the hierarchical system into which they are arranged is personal too . . . When one construct subsumes another its ordinal relationship may be termed superordinal and the ordinal relationship of the other becomes subordinal” (Kelly, 1955, pp. 56–58). It is common for an individual to revise his/her construct system continuously as the universe constantly changes across time. Hence, constructions that might have seemed reasonable at some point in the past can be invalidated by current events. Kelly viewed individuals

Assessment of Personal Constructs

5

as personal scientists, classifying, categorizing, and theorizing about their world, anticipating on the basis of their own personal theories, and acting on the basis of their anticipation. One of the most important aspects of personal construct theory is that individuals will differ from each other in their constructions of events. Kelly (1955) suggests that to obtain the best explanation of a person’s organization of experience or behavior, one should find ways to inquire of the person who does the organizing because only he or she is expert on this unique process, which leads us to how constructivists actually inquire about an individual’s construing process.

Constructivist Assessments What makes an assessment constructivist? Neimeyer (1999) explained that these assessments tend to identify and explore personal narratives and constructions of the individual’s experience, and evaluate his or her unique construct systems and hierarchies. This evaluation can be done by using, for example, ladders, repertory grids, implication grids, resistance to change grids, self-characterizations, and a variety of other measures that have a focus on the assessment of personal meanings (Neimeyer and Bridges, 2003). Thus, personal construct methods are designed to assess how the individual makes sense of the world, yielding a more holistic view of the respondent’s meaning system than is afforded by most traditional psychological assessments. Personal construct psychology is essentially an idiographic approach, and its main strength comes from its ability to depict the content and structure of individual internal representations and ultimately to draw inferences about the general human process of meaning construction (Jankowicz, 1987). In applied settings, constructivist assessments essentially allow practitioners to better understand their clients and how they view the world around them. Overall, personal construct assessments can contribute in clinical settings by guiding case conceptualization and the course of treatment, by revealing the core constructs that drive and contribute to clients’ sense of identity and the reality of the world in which they live. In this respect they accord with a contemporary constructivist approach to assessment and therapy, which focuses on how clients order the world, develop a sense of self and relationship, and act in a way that is coherent with these constructions (Mahoney, 2003).

6

Personal Construct Methodology

The aim of this chapter is to review five personal construct assessments that have been used to evaluate clients’ construct systems. Particular attention will be given to evidence of their validity and reliability, the ways they can be used in various settings, and the unique advantages and disadvantages of each of these techniques. The assessments that were selected for this chapter include some of the more popular and frequently used methods as well as ones that are promising, but less frequently used. These include repertory grids, a structured interview to assess how people view individuals and events in their social world, (Fransella, Bell, and Bannister, 2004; Kelly, 1955); implication grids, used to assess the relationship between constructs (Hinkle, 1965; Winter, 1992); laddering interviews, a technique designed to elicit central core values (Hinkle, 1965; Neimeyer, Anderson, and Stockton, 2001); resistance to change grids, designed to identify core commitments or impasses (Hinkle, 1965; Landfield, Stefan, and Dempsey, 1990; Winter, 1992); and self-characterizations, narrative sketches written by the client to explore self-constructs (Kelly, 1955; Winter, 1992). Rather than performing an exhaustive review of all published studies regarding each method, our focus will be on a subset of publications bearing on the psychometric and practical advantages and limitations of each technique in assessing personal constructs in psychotherapy. We will conclude with a final section that formulates recommendations for future research on the various measures.

Repertory Grid The repertory grid, which is a variation of Kelly’s (1955) Role Construct Repertory Test, is essentially a structured interview procedure that allows the investigator to obtain a glimpse of the world through the “goggles” of the client’s construct system. The goal of the repertory grid technique is to allow an investigation of a person’s construing process of various aspects of his/ her world and of the structural properties of the construct system. In its original form, the repertory grid was designed as a means of assessing the content and structure of an individual’s repertory of role constructs, that system of interconnected meanings that define one’s relationships to others (Kelly, 1955). Essentially, the repertory grid consists of eliciting from the respondent a list of elements, or aspects of experience, and rating those elements on

Assessment of Personal Constructs

7

various constructs. The elements can include different people, facets of the self, a particular person or relationship at different points in time, situations, types of jobs, or any other items or individuals in his or her world (Fransella et al., 2004; Winter, 1992). Most commonly the respondent is asked to provide the names of individuals who fit certain role titles (e.g., your mother, your partner, a person of your own sex whom you would dislike having as a companion on a trip). The clinician will elicit a number of constructs by asking the client in what important way two of the elements are alike and thereby different from the third. The clinician then will attempt to elicit the contrast pole of this construct. For example, if prompted with the triad my spouse, my father, and myself, a person might respond, “my father and husband tend to be very conventional people, but I’m more rebellious.” This basic dimension, conventional vs. rebellious, would then be considered one of the significant themes or constructs that the person uses to organize, interpret, and approach the social world, and to define his or her role in it (Neimeyer, 2002). This procedure is then repeated with another triad of elements until a sufficient number of constructs has been elicited (Winter, 1992). The clinician can design the grid to meet the requirements of his/her particular situation and can choose the preferred grid size, commonly using in the neighborhood of 12 constructs by 12 elements. Next, the respondent is asked to rate or rank each of the elements on the resulting construct dimensions. All of these steps can be completed using computerized programs (e.g., WebGrid III, Omnigrid, Gridcor, etc.) that conduct a variety of analyses on the resulting matrix of ratings (Bringmann, 1992) and also provide clinicians with graphic representations of the client’s construct system (Liseth et al., 1993). These can then help answer some of the following questions: what are the major dimensions or structural characteristics of the client’s construct system?, how is the self construed?, how are other significant people construed?, and so on (Sewell et al., 1992; Winter, 1992). Fromm (2004), Jankowicz (2003) and Fransella and her colleagues (2004) offer comprehensive guides to repertory grid administration, analysis and interpretation, as well as examples of completed grids on a variety of topics.

Scores yielded and analysis By presenting the respondent with a large number of elements (e.g., a disliked person, best friend, one’s ideal self, etc.), the repertory grid (also

8

Personal Construct Methodology

referred to as repgrid) elicits a broad sampling of the personal constructs that represent the person’s outlook on life. These constructs can then be interpreted clinically, used as the basis for further interviewing, or coded using any of a number of reliable systems of content analysis. It is often helpful to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the grid to discern larger patterns. This analysis might involve correlating and factor analyzing the matrix of ratings to determine which constructs “go together” for the respondent (for example, responsibility is associated with stability, whereas irresponsibility implies instability or chaos), or to learn the people with whom the client most and least identifies. The connections among constructs could reveal the reason that maladaptive patterns are held firmly in place for certain individuals. For example, a client may resist becoming more assertive instead of passive, because for this client assertiveness is associated with being rejected as opposed to being loved by others. Associations among elements (e.g., degree of correlation between actual self and ideal self) in a grid can also be clinically informative by providing the clinician with useful indicators of progress in psychotherapy (Neimeyer, 2002). Results of repertory grids can be interpreted at two basic levels, focusing on the content and structure of the client’s constructions. At the content level, grids can be analyzed in a qualitative fashion by considering the unique constructions of specific figures on the grid and the idiographic meanings of particular constructs. Constructs can be coded using a system devised to analyze constructs into separate categories based on their content (e.g., existential, moral, emotional, relational, and concrete) for both clinical and research purposes (Feixas, Geldschlager, and Neimeyer, 2002). Repertory grids also can be analyzed at a structural level by concentrating on specific relationships between given constructs and between certain elements, the overall degree of differentiation or complexity within the client’s construct system, and a multitude of structural features that can be obtained by computerized grid scoring programs (Fransella et al., 2004).

Grid measures Fransella and Bannister (1977) warned about the proliferation of repertory grid measures and of finding different ways of calculating these measures because they are becoming more complex, rendering comprehensive coverage beyond the scope of this chapter. Thus, we chose only a subset of the most frequently used grid measures for inclusion, as described below.

Assessment of Personal Constructs

9

Construct system differentiation Intensity (Fransella and Bannister, 1977): Intensity scores reflect the total degree of interrelatedness among constructs on the grid. Higher scores indicate greater integration of constructs into a coherent system, whereas lower scores reflect greater differentiation. Restated, Intensity is a measure of the extent to which the respondent’s construct system is highly intercorrelated on the one hand, or multidimensional and complex on the other. Intensity is calculated by summing the absolute values of the Pearson correlations between ratings performed on all possible pairs of constructs and then multiplying by 100. The Intensity of a particular construct is an indicator of how central or important the construct is in that grid. The most intense construct has the strongest correlation with the other constructs, and the least intense construct is the least connected to other constructs and is, therefore, the most peripheral in the overall system. Percentage of Variance Accounted for by the First Factor (PVAFF) (Bonarius, 1965): Bonarius considered the PVAFF resulting from a factor analysis of grid ratings as an indicator of cognitive complexity or differentiation. It indicates the importance of the main dimension of meaning in the respondent’s system, with higher scores indicating greater unidimensionality in the individual’s construing. In contrast, if the first factor accounts for only a small percentage of variance then the individual is considered capable of construing in a more multidimensional manner. Thus, like Intensity, greater scores of PVAFF reflect greater conceptual integration, and lower scores reflect differentiation. Cognitive Complexity (Bieri, 1955): This is a third index of differentiation, computed as the number of perfect matches in ratings of elements on each pair of construct dimensions, divided by the maximum possible score that could be obtained from a grid of that size. Fewer matches represent greater complexity. From this perspective, a cognitively complex person can construe events from different points of view rather than from a good/ bad, black/white perspective. Functionally Independent Construction (FIC) (Landfield, 1971, 1977): FIC is a variant on the cognitive complexity theme, and was devised to measure the degree of dissimilarity in an individual’s allocation of grid elements on different constructs, or their application of constructs to different elements. A high FIC indicates that the person is using his or her constructs in a relatively independent fashion.

10

Personal Construct Methodology

Within-construct differentiation Ordination (Landfield and Cannell, 1988) was devised as a measure of hierarchical integration of the system, but some consider it to be a measure of flexibility with which a construct is used, or an index of discrimination in construing a set of figures (Neimeyer, Neimeyer, and Landfield, 1983). It is computed by multiplying the number of different rating values used on a given construct by the difference between the highest and lowest rating; the overall ordination score is simply the mean of the scores for each construct. Extremity of ratings (Bonarius, 1977): Research by Bonarius suggests that the extremity of ratings is a joint function of the meaningfulness of the constructs and the elements, and could be reflecting psychopathology. The Gridcor program (Feixas and Cornejo-Alvarez, 2004) gives the percentage of extreme ratings provided by the respondent for constructs and elements, as well as a general average or total degree of polarization.

Element placement Self-Ideal Discrepancy (Feixas and Cornejo-Alvarez, 2004) is a correlation between the self elements and the ideal elements. It is commonly used as a measure of psychological distress or impaired self-esteem, and is calculated as the distance between the self and ideal elements on the grid. This correlation gives a quantitative evaluation of how respondents value themselves in their own terms, as opposed to more traditional self-esteem scales that score the respondent according to items previously selected by the investigator. Self-Other Discrepancy (Jones, 1961): Initially proposed as a measure of identification with others, the distance between the self and other elements on the grid also has been interpreted conversely as a measure of interpersonal isolation. The differentiation between the self and others is calculated by averaging the distances between the self and all non-self elements. Just as with the discrepancy between the self and ideal, the differentiation between the self and others can be seen in the distances and correlations matrices.

Applications Kelly’s repertory grid technique has played an integral role in the development of personal construct theory. Neimeyer (1985) estimated that more

Assessment of Personal Constructs

11

than 95% of personal construct research published in the first 30 years of the theory was based on some form of repertory grid technique, which makes it by far the most frequently administered and researched technique of all the constructivist assessments yet devised. Indeed, Neimeyer, Baker, and Neimeyer (1990) counted nearly 1000 published studies relying on repertory grid measures, and the number of such studies has continued to burgeon in subsequent years with the widespread availability of computerized grid administration programs. Some of the numerous functions of repertory grids include assessing individuals diagnosed with depression (Landfield and Epting, 1987), anorexia nervosa (Marsh and Stanley, 1995) and learning disabilities (Winer and Vazquez-Abad, 1997), and evaluating construct systems of family members participating in marital (O’Loughlin, 1989) or family therapy (Feixas, 1992). In clinical settings, data obtained from repertory grids can enhance the process of therapy by supplying information on clients’ judgments and feelings about a range of significant individuals in their social world, how they identify with or differ from these individuals, and how their actual self and ideal self differ or relate to one another, which might all be of significant interest to the clinician. Specific goals for therapy can be suggested by a repertory grid given at the outset of treatment, ranging from loosening or tightening certain existing constructs to more fundamental transitions involving altering the meaning of constructs, learning to rely upon other, more useful constructs which are already in the client’s repertory, or adding completely new constructs to the client’s system (Winter, 1992). Furthermore, progress in revising specific constructs can be assessed by re-administering the repertory grid during the final phase of treatment.

Reliability1 Table 1.1 indicates the stability of several grid measures over a time period ranging from one week to several months. Sperlinger (1976) has remarked 1

Due to the nature of the constructivist methods included in this review, we do not discuss indexes of internal consistency because the assessments do not represent multiple items bearing on one construct, but instead we examine systems of constructs in their entirety. In a sense, the various indexes of relationships among constructs evaluated represented by the differentiation measures are measures of “internal consistency” computed at the level of the individual’s own system. Rather than assessing the degree of attainment of an ideal of absolute reliability, however, they are interpreted as reflections of the system’s coherence or multidimensionality. Therefore, we will consider only test-retest reliability in the reviews that follow.

PVAFF (Percentage of variance accounted for by the first factor)

n ¼ 81 n ¼ 78 n ¼ 61 n ¼ 20 n ¼ 17 n ¼ 18 Depressed outpatients

Teachers

Spanish and American students

Normals

Teachers

Spanish and American students

n ¼ 81

Intensity

n ¼ 78 n ¼ 61 n ¼ 20 n ¼ 17 n ¼ 30

Participants

Sample size

Structural measures derived from repertory grids

Table 1.1 Test-retest reliability of the measures for the repertory grid.

1 hr ¼ 0.61 1 week ¼ 0.72 1 month ¼ 0.67 6 months ¼ 0.82 12 months ¼ 0.73 Average of 7 months (5–11 months) ¼ 0.28 (p > 0.10) eliciting new constructs; same elements

1 week ¼ 0.95 1 month ¼ 0.94 6 months ¼ 0.85 12 months ¼ 0.87 Immediate retest ¼ 32

1 hr ¼ 0.95

Test-retest reliability

Sperlinger (1976)

Smith (2000)

Feixas et al. (1992)

Bannister (1962a)

Smith (2000)

Feixas et al. (1992)

Study

12 Personal Construct Methodology

Ordination

Cognitive complexity

FIC (Functionally Independent Construction)

Spanish and American students

n ¼ 24

n ¼ 81

n ¼ 81 n ¼ 78 n ¼ 61 Spanish and American students

Mixed Adults Mixed Adults Adults Adults

Clients

n ¼ 13

n ¼ 78 n ¼ 61 n ¼ 14 n ¼ 34 n ¼ 19 n ¼ 38

Students (2/3 were female) Male Students

n ¼ 40

1 hr ¼ 0.71 1 week ¼ 0.73 1 month ¼ 0.59

1 week ¼ 0.89 1 month ¼ 0.80 4 months ¼ 0.95 Immediate retest ¼ 0.80 2 weeks ¼ 0.82 1 week ¼ 0.48

1 hr ¼ 0.87

2 weeks ¼ 0.82 (using same constructs and elements) 16 days ¼ 0.55 (using different elements) 1 month ¼ 0.41 2 months ¼ 0.48 3 months ¼ 0.51 (using different constructs)

(continued)

Feixas et al. (1992)

Crockett (1965) Bieri (1955) Bieri and Blacker (1956) Pedersen (1958)

Feixas et al. (1992)

Baugh (1968) Landfield et al. (1968)

Danforth (1968)

Assessment of Personal Constructs 13

Figure Similarity

Self-Other Discrepancy (Identification)

Self-Ideal Discrepancy

Structural measures derived from repertory grids

Table 1.1 (Continued )

Depressed outpatients Normals Not given Description not given Students

n ¼ 21

n ¼ 20

Spanish and American students

n ¼ 78 n ¼ 61 n ¼ 18 n ¼ n/a n ¼ 21

n ¼ 81

Depressed outpatients

Spanish and American students

n ¼ 81

n ¼ 78 n ¼ 61 n ¼ 18

Participants

Sample size

1 week ¼ 0.77 (same elements) 2 weeks ¼ 0.72 (same constructs and elements)

1 week ¼ 0.89 1 month ¼ 0.85 Average of 7 months ¼ 0.95 Retest ¼ 0.86 1 week ¼ Ranged from 0.41 to 0.83 (same elements)

1 hr ¼ 0.94

1 week ¼ 0.88 1 month ¼ 0.78 Average of 7 months ¼ 0.87

1 hr ¼ 0.92

Test-retest reliability

Fjeld and Landfield (1961)

Pedersen (1958)

Sperlinger (1976) Jones (1954) Pedersen (1958)

Feixas et al. (1992)

Sperlinger (1976)

Feixas et al. (1992)

Study

14 Personal Construct Methodology

Students Students

Spanish and American students

n ¼ 20

n ¼ 20

n ¼ 81

n ¼ 78 n ¼ 61

Male patients Students

n¼9 n ¼ 20



p  0.01. p  0.005.  p  0.05. For all other correlations p < 0.001.



Extremity of ratings

Construct similarity

1 hr ¼ 0.89 1 week ¼ 0.83 1 month ¼ 0.71

Immediate retest ¼ 0.69 2 weeks ¼ 0.79 (using same elements) 2 weeks ¼ 0.80 (using new elements and constructs) 2 weeks ¼ 0.79 (asked to use different elements from original list) Feixas et al. (1992)

Fjeld and Landfield (1961)

Fjeld and Landfield (1961)

Hunt (1951) Fjeld and Landfield (1961)

Assessment of Personal Constructs 15

16

Personal Construct Methodology

that if a grid does elicit significant features of an individual’s construing, grids completed by the same individual at different times would show some degree of stability. Work reviewed by Bonarius (1965) indicated considerable consistency in grid measures such as: figure similarity, construct similarity, and the identification of self with other figures; however, the maximum interval between completion of the repeated grids in these studies was only two weeks. Fransella (1981), in a later review, concluded that average reliabilities tend to be quite high, but the range for the individuals making up the sample is often very wide. Other researchers have assessed the degree of stability in the constructs elicited from an individual at different times, and, despite some inconsistent results (Mitsos, 1958), the general finding is of similarity in the constructs elicited on two occasions of testing (ranging from one week to seven months) even when different elements have been employed in the elicitation procedure (Fjeld and Landfield, 1961; Hunt, 1951; Sperlinger, 1976). Specifically, Fjeld and Landfield (1961) retested 20 volunteers and found a strong Pearson correlation on retest when the respondents were given the original list of names and asked to choose different acquaintances from those on the original list. These results indicate that the respondents are consistent in their grid responses and tend to formulate similar constructs even when asked for different elements. Fjeld and Landfield (1961) remarked that this consistency in grid results not only permits the use of the repgrid in determining the validity of Kelly’s personal construct theory, but the consistency in itself supports Kelly’s argument that people do have a stable set of constructs which they apply to the “objects” in their world, even though the “objects” may change over time. Additionally, there has been research examining the stability of general structural features of construing. A relatively high test-retest correlation was reported by Bieri (1955) for his measure of cognitive complexity, which has been used to assess an individual’s capacity to construe social behavior in a multidimensional way. Others have found reliability scores for cognitive complexity that are almost identical to Bieri’s (Bieri and Blacker, 1956; Feixas et al., 1992), though with some exceptions (Pedersen, 1958). Feixas and his colleagues (1992) carried out the largest experimental study of some of the structural measures derived from repertory grids. Overall, they found the reliability of most of the structural measures examined across one month to be impressive. Of the various measures, Intensity and self-other discrepancy proved the most reliable, and PVAFF and ordination scores the least stable. Intensity, cognitive complexity,

Assessment of Personal Constructs

17

self-ideal discrepancy, and self-other discrepancy all were quite stable at a 1-hr retest and showed considerable reliability 1 week to 1 month later. These results allowed Feixas and colleagues (1992) to conclude that several of the measures were stable enough to be considered as measures of individual difference. More recently Smith (2000) found that grid measures such as Intensity and PVAFF proved to be stable over a 12-month interval. Sperlinger (1976) examined self-construing, finding very high reliability between the distances of the self from other elements on two grid administrations and that those respondents whose selfconstruing changed the most exhibited greater self-ideal discrepancy, perhaps indicating greater motivation to change, at initial assessment. A low PVAFF and therefore a relatively loosely organized construct system was also predictive of greater change. Self-other discrepancy, also sometimes referred to as the identification score, is reported by several researchers to be highly reliable (Jones, 1954; Pedersen, 1958; Sperlinger, 1976). Identification scores also related closely to other indices of repgrid structure, including the overall degree of similarity between constructs, the average distance between figures, and the explanatory power of the largest factors (Adams-Webber, 1970, 1989). Thus, selfother differentiation is not only consistent and stable as a grid measure, but the evidence also suggests that the extent to which other persons are differentiated from the self is important in the organization of personal constructs (Adams-Webber, 1985). Results of two specific studies (Baugh, 1968; Danforth, 1968) point to the relative stability of the FIC (Functionally Independent Construction) score over a two week period. However, a study by Landfield, Danforth, and Baugh (1968) showed a weaker correlation (at 1-month retest) than the previous two studies. Some repgrid measures have been criticized for their low reliability. Bavelas, Chan and Guthrie (1976) retested 76 students after three weeks and only found a weak reliability of cognitive complexity and identification measures across time. A few grid measures (ordination, extremity of ratings) have not received as much attention as others, but appear to be relatively reliable from the results of the Feixas et al. (1992) study.

General remarks Even though there is a need to determine the stability of certain grid measures across time, it is recognized that certain periods in a person’s life

18

Personal Construct Methodology

might be expected to be associated with greater instability in construing, such as when a person undergoes psychotherapy. Giving a client feedback regarding grid results may also lead to reconstruing as demonstrated by Keen’s (1977) finding of significant test-retest reliability for grid scores when clients were given no feedback from their initial grids but not when they were provided with such feedback. Kelly (1955) defined reliability as the measure of a test’s insensitivity to change, and Mair (1964) suggested that instead of expecting a measure to be identical across administrations, one should be able to predict whether there should be change or whether the measures should be fairly stable. As shown above, grid studies have shown a high degree of stability of constructs and elements over time, and where movement has occurred it typically has been predictable (Fransella and Crisp, 1970). The evidence presented shows that the repertory grid is an instrument that provides consistent information on several grid measures such as construct and figure similarity, Intensity, cognitive complexity, selfideal and self-other discrepancy; however, other measures remain relatively unstudied such as extremity of ratings and ordination. Furthermore, two grid measures (PVAFF and FIC) produced conflicting results across studies, raising questions about their reliability.

Validity Predictive and concurrent validity Kelly (1955) indicated that results from rep grids may be predictive of social behavior, and some studies have examined this assumption. For example, Bieri (1955, 1966) found that more cognitively complex individuals have available more versatile systems for perceiving the behavior of others and were thereby better able to predict the behaviors of others, however, other researchers have failed to replicate this finding (Adams-Webber, 1969; Cronbach, 1955). Neimeyer, Neimeyer, and Landfield (1983) further explored the relation between predictive accuracy and cognitive structure (conceptual differentiation measured by the FIC score and integration measured by the ordination score) for both rater and target at initial and advanced stages of acquaintance, and found that the conceptual structure of the predictor was not related to accuracy in prediction whereas differentiation and integration of the target’s construct system were; more complex acquaintances were more difficult for others to predict. Further evidence suggests that individuals high in complexity distinguish more

Assessment of Personal Constructs

19

clearly between other individuals in the impressions they form of others and assume that other individuals are less similar to themselves (Crockett, 1965), whereas individuals low in complexity were more likely to separate people into two groups on the basis of a good–bad dichotomy (Campbell, 1960). In addition, Berzonsky and Neimeyer (1988) have found high differentiation of construing (FIC) in adolescents to be associated with lack of commitment and low self-esteem. Winter (1992) reviewed studies that provided evidence that negative selfconstruing was present in clients diagnosed as depressive, neurotic, anorexic, and delinquent, and that neurotics and depressives tend to construe the self in polarized terms and as very dissimilar to others. Similarly, Intensity has been shown to discriminate between thought disordered schizophrenics and other psychiatric groups and normal groups (Bannister and Fransella, 1965). The lower the Intensity score, the more disordered or loose the individual’s thinking. Fransella and Bannister (1967) assessed the ability of the repgrid in predicting voting behavior of 74 British adults and found that it was possible to make accurate predictions of how a person would vote and how they definitely would not vote by considering the relationship between evaluative (e.g., prejudiced, sincere) and political (e.g., likely to vote Conservative) constructs. Similarly, measures derived from grids have been found to be predictive of preferences for universities (Rowles, 1972) and religious attitudes and affiliations (Cannell, 1985). Some empirical studies reviewed by Winter (1992) suggest that a high degree of polarization assessed by the extremity score is linked to neurotic problems as well as to the severity of depressive symptomatology. Therefore, some researchers use it as an indication of pathology or maladjustment when other factors are held constant. The evidence discussed above supports the concurrent and predictive validity of several grid measures such as Intensity and cognitive complexity as measures of conceptual differentiation, self-other discrepancy and selfideal discrepancy as indicators of element discrimination, and extremity ratings as an index of “pathology” when the subjective meaningfulness of constructs and elements is controlled.

Internal and construct validity If the grid is a valid measure of personal constructs, it would be expected that its elicitation procedure would produce constructs on which elements are more highly differentiated than they are on supplied constructs.

20

Personal Construct Methodology

Bannister (1962b) provided support for the hypotheses that grid procedures could demonstrate that constructs within the subsystem concerned with construing of people are related to a degree above that expected by chance; and that individuals within one culture will have similar patterns of construct relationships, although not necessarily agreeing about the construing of individual elements. Slater (1974) has provided a method of assessing the significance of an individual grid by testing the null hypothesis that it is distinguishable from a “quasi grid” composed of an array of random numbers. He found that, provided that the constructs are meaningful to the respondent and the elements are within their range of convenience, experimental grids are very rarely similar to quasi grids, the most striking difference being the relatively large PVAFF score in the experimental grids. Discriminant validity Adams-Webber (1970) has pointed out that too little attention has been given to the interrelationship of repertory grid indices assumed to measure different variables and has examined the discriminant validity of a few such indices. He found that cognitive simplicity and constellatoriness (the amount of variance accounted for by the largest element factor) were found to be functionally similar and could not be clearly distinguished from a measure of identification (the average match between self-ratings and ratings of other elements in the grid), so that there was equivalence between structural measures based on construct relationships and those based on element relationships. All the measures appeared to be concerned with the individual’s tendency to construe people unidimensionally in terms of a stereotype consistent with his or her own self-concept. The high intercorrelation between measures was thought to be consistent with the internal logic of personal construct theory and the development of the grid as an instrument to explore construct-element interaction. High correlations also have been obtained between Bannister’s Intensity score, the size of the first component from Slater’s principal component analysis (Fransella, 1965); as well as between Intensity scores and low levels of imbalance in construct relationships in clinical populations (Margolius, 1980; Sheehan, 1977; Winter, 1983). Honess (1976) found that Bieri’s cognitive complexity is unrelated to Intensity. On the contrary, Feixas et al. (1992) reported correlations among the basic structural repgrid measures, and found Intensity and cognitive complexity were substantially correlated with each other, but

Assessment of Personal Constructs

21

neither was significantly related to PVAFF. Intensity was correlated moderately with the self-ideal discrepancy and self-other discrepancy. These results suggest that less complex individuals in this study might have perceived themselves as more isolated from others and less satisfied with self than the individuals whose construing was more differentiated. Ordination was correlated most strongly with self-other discrepancy and self-ideal discrepancy. Ordination was also correlated with cognitive complexity, indicating that individuals who have more differentiation between constructs also discriminated more among elements within construct dimensions. Extremity of ratings was unrelated to any of the other structural scores, implying that it was measuring a conceptually distinct feature of construing. Botella and Gallifa (1995) found a strong positive correlation between the PVAFF score and the Intensity score, even though Feixas et al. (1992) did not find a significant correlation. Table 1.2 reports the intercorrelations between the basic structural grid measures that were found in the Feixas et al. (1992) study to give an impression of the discriminant validity for these indices.

General remarks In summary, the intercorrelations among the measures reviewed generally provide evidence for their distinctiveness. The results support the concurrent validity of some measures (notably Intensity and cognitive complexity as measures of conceptual differentiation, and ordination, self-other discrepancy and self-ideal discrepancy as indexes of element discrimination), while leaving in question the meaning of PVAFF and extremity of ratings, which were unrelated to any of the other structural measures (Feixas et al., 1992). Thus, conceptually related measures generally tend to converge, and conceptually distinct measures show little relationship, as might be expected theoretically.

Advantages The repertory grid technique is unique in that it combines aspects of both idiographic assessment and nomothetic research by permitting the researcher to uncover unique dimensions of an individual’s outlook or alternatively to search for general patterns across individuals. Rather than having the client respond to standardized questions, grid technique essentially guides the respondent in constructing his or her own

0.25 0.02 0.25 0.21 0.14 0.03

PVAFF 0.71 0.36 0.46 0.05 0.18

Intensity

b

b

Percentage of variance accounted for by first factor. Higher scores indicate less differentiated or complex construing.  p < 0.01.  p < 0.001.

a

Intensity Cognitive complexity Self-other discrepancy Self-ideal discrepancy Extremity of ratings Ordination

Measure

a,b

0.06 0.14 0.18 0.34

Cognitiveb Complexity

0.70 0.01 0.79

Self-Other Discrepancy

Table 1.2 Discriminant validity of repertory grid measures (from Feixas et al., 1992).

0.11 0.46

Self-Ideal Discrepancy

0.05

Extremity of Ratings

22 Personal Construct Methodology

Assessment of Personal Constructs

23

questionnaire by eliciting the individual’s own constructs and relevant elements to rate, while permitting comparisons across different people or groups. This format yields a personal but systematic glimpse of the client’s construction of the world (Neimeyer and Bridges, 2003). This unique blend of projective and objective testing has made repertory grid technique useful to both clinicians and scientists seeking to understand how different individuals and groups organize their views of themselves and the world.

Limitations and cautions Despite the benefits described above, there are a few constraints of repertory grid technique that should also be acknowledged. It is clear that measures of the structure of personal construct systems are affected by the particular design and procedures of the method. Substantial effects have been linked to the use of specific elements in the grid (Wright and Lam, 2002), the kinds of constructs generated, the measures used to elicit those constructs (Caputi and Reddy, 1999; Hagans, Neimeyer, and Goodholm, 2000), and even the different ways in which repgrid ratings are made (Neimeyer and Hagans, 2002). The very nature of the constructs seems to be influenced by the instructions given, the use of particular kinds of construct examples (Neimeyer and Tolliver, 2002; Reeve, Owens, and Neimeyer, 2002), and even subtle or unintentional procedural variations (Metzler, Gorden, and Neimeyer, 2002). These variations can have a substantial impact on the outcome of the repertory grid, and thus highlights the challenges and responsibilities placed on researchers in this area (Neimeyer et al., 2002). Of course, many of these sources of variance are controlled in a given study when the same method of grid elicitation is used for all respondents, as well as in clinical contexts in which the same grid is repeated on different occasions to assess meaningful changes in construct system organization or structure. Conversely, the greatest care must be taken in comparing results of different studies using rather different procedures.

General remarks Repertory grid technique has been proven to be fairly reliable and valid with some measures proving to be more stable and valid than others. The repgrid also has an extensive range of functions and applications in both clinical and

24

Personal Construct Methodology

research areas, and is easy to administer and analyze with the help of various computerized programs. Thus, it appears that the use of grids could become an increasingly popular tool for psychological assessment, consultation, and research, at least among clinicians and investigators who are drawn to assess systems of personal meaning (Neimeyer, 2001).

Implication Grid Description of assessment Hinkle’s (1965) implication grid (or impgrid) is an alternative grid method that has been shown to be valuable in the clinical setting. Hinkle set out to discover what meaning each construct has for the individual in terms of its implicative relationships to other constructs, and he developed the implication grid as one method of assessing these implications. Here, the clients are questioned directly concerning the implications of their constructs as opposed to the more indirect assessment of construct interrelationship that can be derived from a conventional repertory grid. Hinkle’s (1965, p. 36) instructions for the implication grid are as follows, “Consider this construct for a moment (Construct 1). Now, if you were to be changed back and forth from one side to the other, that is, if you woke up one morning and realized that you were best described by one side of this construct while the day before you had been best described by the opposite side, what other constructs would be likely to be changed by a change in yourself on this one construct alone?” For example, if the client were to imagine shifting from being happy to sad, she might be asked whether she would also tend to become more reclusive as opposed to social, more suspicious as opposed to trusting, and so on. After the client notes the implications from the first construct dimension, each of the other construct dimensions in turn becomes the implying dimension (Fransella et al., 2004; Winter, 1992). Thus, each construct dimension is treated as potentially implying change on other dimensions. See Fransella et al. (2004) for a full illustration of implication grid and easy-to-follow instructions on how to administer and analyze them.

Scores yielded The participant’s responses are recorded in a grid matrix, with the dimensions potentially implying change on other dimensions forming the rows

Assessment of Personal Constructs

25

and the same dimensions as potentially implied or influenced by other dimensions forming the columns. Hinkle’s (1965) approach involved simply summing the entries for each row and column of the grid, and then rank ordering these row and column totals. Core and peripheral constructs can be differentiated by indexing the number of implications of each, with constructs implying sweeping change considered relatively superordinate or core, and those affected by changes in many other dimensions considered relatively subordinate or peripheral. Theoretically, the former would be more difficult to modify in therapy than the latter. Thus, the implications grid approach directly assesses how constructs are arranged hierarchically (Landfield, Stefan, and Dempsey, 1990).

Applications and variations There are many possible uses of the implication grid in studying psychological change. Clearly, the method could be used to chart relative stability and change for both superordinate and subordinate implications (Bannister and Mair, 1968). For example, a husband whose wife experienced his fawning and paternalistic behavior as suffocating might be helped to find other ways to express his core construct of being loving, in order to allow modification of these peripheral but relationally disruptive behaviors. Although clinicians have employed some of Hinkle’s methods, these methods have received less attention from researchers. However, a few studies have been conducted in which implication grids have been found to be useful for a wide variety of contexts and conditions of administration. Hinkle’s original version provides information about implicative relations among constructs as whole units. Although the participants are asked about shifting between construct poles, no specific information is provided that indicates which poles are involved in implicative relations. However, an interest in the implications of individual poles of constructs led to a variation called the bipolar impgrid. Here, the poles of each construct are treated as single units. Respondents are told “imagine that all you know about a person is that he/she is ‘sad.’ What from all these other characteristics in front of you would you expect to find in a ‘sad’ person?” Each term is paired with every other term to determine the presence or absence of an implicative relationship. Fransella (1972) found Hinkle’s instructions rather complicated when using the original version of the impgrid with a group of people who stuttered and decided to use the bipolar impgrid as a clearer alternative.

26

Personal Construct Methodology

Honess (1979) extracted constructs from essays that had been written by 203 children in five different age groups ranging from 8 to 16 years old, and used those constructs in a bipolar impgrid. In this study, the variation of the impgrid required children to assess the interdependence of constructs drawn from their personal set of constructs. In addition to providing an overall measure of differentiation (based on the total number of implications revealed in the grids) the independence of the subsystems of each individual’s construct system can also be examined with the implication grid. The proportion of implications recorded for relatively abstract constructs (e.g., those bearing on personality or values) increased with age, supporting the assumption that development involves increasing hierarchic integration of the meaning system. Furthermore, Ravenette (1977) employed impgrids with delinquent boys, using a procedure in which the constructs in the grid are common delinquent activities, and the participant is asked “if a boy commits one particular crime, is he likely to commit the other crime?” Such results provided information of practical use on patterns of high risk activities. In a third illustration, Baker, Neimeyer, and Barris (1997) used the implication grid to assess presumed cognitive vulnerabilities in two depressive subtypes (anaclitic/sociotropic and introjective/autonomous) with a group of 63 depressed inpatients. Specifically, they examined whether depressed individuals manifesting either dependency or self-critical personality styles would show greater implications of change in their selfperception specific to their proposed area of vulnerability. As predicted, hypothetical shifts on achievement constructs on the impgrid precipitated more cognitive change for autonomous individuals as identified by the Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale (SAS) than did shifts on dependency constructs. In contrast, for sociotropic patients shifts in both the dependency and achievement domains carried similarly substantial implications for their self-construing. This study demonstrates the relevance of the impgrid method in assessing psychopathology in the clinical realm, specifically in regards to cotemporary cognitive theories of depression.

Reliability Landfield et al. (1990) explored the short-term test-retest stability of two forms of implication grids (self grids and multiple grids), and they found these grids to be fairly stable across time. In the single self implications task, participants considered whether a general self change on one personal

Assessment of Personal Constructs

27

construct dimension would influence change on their other dimensions. In the multiple self implications task, participants were asked about selfchange and construct implications within situational contexts defined by general life activities (play, work); infrequent and potentially stressful events (a crisis); and familiar individuals (friends, parents). These situation grids were used to measure implicative relationships that can be applied across situational contexts. The researchers compared temporal consistency of single grids with the multiple self grids for a group of 52 college students (21 men and 31 women). In the first study 22 participants completed the single self impgrid (SSIG) twice, with a one-week interval between tests using the same elicited constructs, and they found a test-retest reliability of 0.61. In the second study 30 other participants completed the multiple self impgrid (MSIG) twice, using a one-week interval with the same constructs, and they found a test-retest reliability of 0.59, which was almost identical to that found in the SSIG study. The multiple self implication grid was shown to be a promising method for assessing certain kinds of higher order and contextually persuasive constructions that are useful in the person’s day-to-day living and to highlight implicative relationships of which the person is not entirely aware. Furthermore, both the SSIG and MSIG were found to be moderately stable across time. Honess (1978) designed a study that compared repertory grids and implication grids, and the latter proved more stable and sensitive to participants’ changes in construing over a period of four weeks. In this study, a measure of Intensity, an estimate of overall matching strength, was computed for both repgrids and impgrids for comparison. The reliability coefficient for the repgrid Intensity scores was low (r ¼ 0.35, n.s.) in contrast to the significant coefficient for the Intensity scores that were yielded by the impgrids (r ¼ 62, p < 0.01). Fransella (1972) administered both a repertory grid and an adaptation of the implication grid to fifty children, with similar results. Kelsall and Strongman (1978) demonstrated the validity and reliability of a modified version of the implication grid technique for use in research on emotion with undergraduate students. In this modified form the participant was asked to imagine herself experiencing the first emotion named on the top of the grid. She was then asked to place a check in the column of the remaining emotions she would definitely experience while experiencing the first emotion, to place a cross next to any emotions she definitely would not experience, but to leave a blank next to any emotions that she might or might not experience. The students were asked to return to repeat this

28

Personal Construct Methodology

administration after a four week interval, and at that time they were also asked to complete an entirely new grid with different emotional labels. The total numbers of implications on the three administrations all correlated significantly with each other (0.59–0.83) indicating that the emotional impgrid is reliable across time and independent of specific emotional labels. These results suggest that this adaptation could provide interesting comparisons between the emotional experience of different individuals or groups, or be used to track changes in the level of emotional differentiation experienced by clients over treatment.

Convergent validity Metzler and Neimeyer (1988) administered to a sample of 57 college students a repgrid (rating) whose elements were alternative careers, an implication grid that assessed the relationships among the provided constructs used on the repgrid, and a resistance to change grid (see below) using the same constructs as the other grids. They found no relationship between the number of implications a construct carried and the total variance it accounted for on the repgrid, although each measure converged with other independent measures of hierarchical organization. The researchers suggested that further research needs to look at the differences among these methods and the reliability of the findings concerning their intercorrelation with one another. In response to this need of research on the convergence of these two methods, Dempsey and Neimeyer (1995) conducted the first study of convergence of implication and repertory grids in assessing system structure at three levels: (a) the overall structure or relatedness of constructs in the system (molar level); (b) the average degree of the connectedness of each construct to the system as a whole (molecular level); and (c) the degree of relationship between specific pairs of constructs (atomistic level). They administered a repgrid and an impgrid to 36 college students and found that these two contrasting methodologies showed impressive convergence at all three distinct levels of analysis. At a molar level, impgrids and repgrids pointed to similar degrees of overall structure or differentiation among constructs being sampled. Thus, individuals whose construct systems displayed relatively dense networks of implication on the impgrid also appeared to have more highly integrated systems for construing significant people in their lives, as assessed by correlational or factor analyses of their repgrids. At a more specific, molecular level of analysis, constructs that had more overall implicative ties with other constructs on the impgrid also were

Assessment of Personal Constructs

29

more highly correlated in rating elements on the repgrid. Finally, at the atomistic level, the intensity of the implicative relationships between specific construct pairs on the impgrid was reflected in the correlations revealed by the repgrid. Altogether, these findings provide evidence for the convergence of the two methods as measures of conceptual organization. Furthermore, these results support the further development of impgrid methodology (Caputi, Breiger, and Pattison, 1990), and provide encouragement for the extension of the impgrid in future research and clinical applications (Dempsey and Neimeyer, 1995).

Advantages Advocates of implications grids argue that they directly assess how constructs are arranged hierarchically, and so are likely to yield better measures of relationships within a system than the more frequently used repertory grid (Landfield et al., 1990). Further, impgrids allow for exploration of higher order constructs related to the client’s core sense of self, which could be useful to clinicians who are interested in discovering the implications these superordinate constructs have on the client’s entire construct system. However, whether the direct assessment of consciously recognized construct relationships yielded by the impgrid is preferable to the indirect assessment based on the pattern of use of constructs on the repgrid likely depends on the investigator’s assumptions and goals, and need for research.

Limitations and general comments Dempsey and Neimeyer (1995) have commented on the surprising fact that relatively little use has been made of the implication grid, especially due to its ability to allow direct measurements of the relationships between constructs. Caputi et al. (1990) suggest that one obstacle may be the lack of a computerized method for analyzing implication grids compared to the abundance of programs designed specifically for administering and analyzing the repertory grids. Although easily remedied by an investigator with programming competencies, this current deficit makes the administration more complicated and the analysis more challenging for clinicians, which may make them less appealing overall. The somewhat abstract instructions can also be confusing for clients to comprehend. As discussed above, although researchers have explored the reliability and validity of implication

30

Personal Construct Methodology

grids and applied them in several clinical contexts, more research needs to be done on this particular method.

Laddering Description of assessment Hinkle’s (1965) laddering technique is designed to elicit and examine the participant’s superordinate or core constructs that carry implications for his or her sense of identity (Neimeyer, 1993). In a laddering interview, the participant typically is first asked to compare and contrast three elements (e.g., three people – mother, father and self) using the “difference method” (Neimeyer, Anderson, and Stockton, 2001) to generate the initial construct dimension, which represents the first rung of the ladder. To elicit a personal construct with two contrasting poles, the participant is asked to identify how two of the elements are alike and different from the third. For example, the father and self might be identified as responsible and the mother as irresponsible; thus the first ladder rung will be responsible vs. irresponsible. Then the participant is asked which he or she prefers and why he or she prefers that construct pole or what the advantage of that pole is (i.e., I prefer to be responsible because it gives me a structure to work within). The reason for the preference is assumed to be a construct superordinate to the first, and by repeating the laddering process further higher order constructs are elicited. Next, the respondent is asked to provide the contrast to that construct, which yields the next ladder rung (e.g., structure to work within vs. flexibility). Once again, the investigator would ask the respondent to indicate with which side of this construct he/she prefers to be associated (e.g., structure) and why that is the preference. This inquiry ladders up to the next higher order construct (e.g., “because I feel more stable”), to which the investigator elicits a further contrast (e.g., feeling unsteady). This procedure is continued until the participant cannot elicit a new construct, which usually suggests he or she has approached a core construct within his/her construct system. Essentially, laddering consists of a series of straightforward, recursive questions in which the therapist first identifies an initial bipolar construct and then asks with which of the poles the client prefers to associate him or herself. The therapist continues in this way, inquiring about a preference, a reason, or an advantage and its contrast in a cyclical pattern of questioning until the client begins repeating responses or finds it difficult

Assessment of Personal Constructs

31

to formulate a further construct. The result is usually a multilayered hierarchy of personal meanings, which tends to represent higher order (superordinate) issues or values implied by the more concrete or specific constructs given at the beginning of the exercise. Once completed, the final ladder can be shared with the client to discuss the deeper themes and meanings and what they might imply. See Neimeyer (1993) or Neimeyer et al. (2001) for examples of completed ladders and instructions on administration. The therapist can inquire further into the client’s sense of self-congruence or self-contradiction by asking the client where he/she actually would place himself/herself on each of the constructs, revealing points of compatibility or conflict between actual and preferred self-views (Neimeyer and Bridges, 2003). Further processing could be accomplished through the use of a number of facilitative questions (Neimeyer et al., 2001; Neimeyer and Winter, 2006). Examples include: What central values are implied by the ideas you align yourself with at the upper end of you ladder? Were there points at which you hesitated before assigning a pole preference? Who in your life most supports or most resists the preferences you describe? Neimeyer (1993) has found that when using ladders in a clinical context it is helpful to use these various facilitative questions in order to process the meaning of clients’ responses with them, which could lead to therapeutic change.

Applications The laddering technique is an assessment strategy that directly elicits hierarchical features of the individual’s personal construct system, linking concrete perceptions, behaviors, or role descriptions with the higherorder issues they imply. Thus, laddering is frequently helpful in the course of therapy for deepening a client’s investigation into a specific complaint and revealing subtle ways in which a person’s sense of self becomes intertwined with a symptom. Important client values and strengths can be identified that can provide anchoring points for elaborating a “preferred self.” Laddering can also be effective in exploring antagonistic feelings, actions, or features of one’s personality (Neimeyer and Bridges, 2003). Completion of a laddering interview in a therapy session, followed by written reflections in response to therapeutic questions as between-session “homework,” can be a way of extending the impact of the technique and fostering greater self-awareness and behavior change (Neimeyer and Winter, 2006).

32

Personal Construct Methodology

The popularity of laddering is apparent from its use in a broad range of research and applied contexts. For example, researchers have used laddering to assess construct change in the treatment of persons who stutter (Fransella, 1972), to identify underlying emotional schemas in cognitive therapy for depression (Neimeyer and Feixas, 1990), and to sample self-relevant constructs related to issues of death and dying (Krieger, Epting, and Leitner, 1974; Neimeyer, 1994). In addition, laddering has been used in organizational consultation in order to elicit cognitive maps of a given domain (Hill, 1995) and in marital therapy to help partners see that they each share the same goals within their relationship. G. Neimeyer (1985) explained how laddering can trace the implications of presenting marital problems to the core role structure in each partner’s construct system. He notes that partners usually ladder upward toward shared superordinate constructs such as, “because that would show that she or he listens to me, respects me, or loves me.”

Psychometrics Hinkle’s (1965) original study provided the first evidence for the validity of the laddering technique by demonstrating that laddered constructs (superordinate) produced by 28 students had wider ranges of implication and greater resistance to change than other presumably more subordinate constructs in their systems. Since then, laddering has been widely used in clinical settings, but until recently there was little research validating the technique, and some criticism has been voiced about the assumption that laddering elicits core constructs. Bannister and Mair (1968) noted that asking “why?” is not a guaranteed way to elicit superordinate constructs. Furthermore, Butt (1995) argued that laddering frequently does not produce constructs that qualify as superordinate and in his experience, laddering “frequently produces snakes as well as ladders, going both up and down the system in a looping and circular fashion” (p. 229). In response to Butt’s criticisms of laddering, Neimeyer and colleagues (2001) conducted a validation study of the laddering technique as a specific measure of hierarchical structure of core constructs. They conducted laddering interviews with 103 university students in two conditions: a film condition where they were asked to name three recent movies they had seen, in order to assess constructs originating from concrete prompts, and a family condition where they were asked to consider three elements – their mother, father, and self – as a way to assess constructs originating from a more abstract

Assessment of Personal Constructs

33

prompt. The laddered constructs were coded according to their content into specific categories (Existential, Moral, Emotional, Relational, Personal, Intellectual/Operation, Specific Interests, and Concrete Descriptors) using the Classification System for Personal Constructs (CSPC) devised by Feixas, Geldschlager, and Neimeyer (2002). They examined the structure, process, and content of the construct hierarchies for each of the participants and found support that the laddering technique accesses more superordinate constructs of personal meaning systems. The content analysis of the constructs revealed that superordinate constructs tended to reflect more central existential themes of purpose in life, meaning, morality, and identity, whereas subordinate constructs more commonly reflected more superficial attitudes, interests, activities, and even concrete descriptors. When examining the structural level, they found the concrete prompts (films) required more hierarchical steps to converge on core structures than did more abstract prompts having to do with the self and intimate others. At the process level, the participants required more time to articulate final constructs than to formulate initial constructs and intermediate constructs. Basically, their findings provide the first general evidence for the construct validity of laddering as a measure of the hierarchical structure of personal meaning systems since Hinkle’s (1965) original study. Costigan, Closs, and Eustace (2000) also found that laddering was useful and proceeded as expected when psychiatric nurses considered the implications of their changing work roles, which indirectly supported the validity of laddering.

Advantages The laddering technique is widely used due to its flexibility and its ability to quickly access central constructs that enable clinicians to understand the individual’s process of construing and to aid in changing their personal meaning systems, if needed. Laddering does not require much time and can be easily incorporated into ongoing therapy. Leitner (1995) discussed how laddering allows for the exploration of constructs that tend to be related to one another, allowing the therapist to understand specific aspects of the client’s construct system in more detail. A unique advantage of the laddering technique is that it can begin with nearly any personal construct or personal contrast that is of interest in the course of therapy. For example, a client could express much frustration and anxiety over a difficult decision to either enter graduate school to pursue a career she

34

Personal Construct Methodology

loves or to settle down and start a family. This contrast could then be explored through the laddering procedure, tracing the implications of each alternative.

Limitations or precautions There are a few concerns that need to be taken into consideration for any clinician intending to administer a ladder. The technique appears to be deceptively simple to administer, which can convince first time users that they might be more proficient at laddering than they actually are. In fact, the recursive questioning that is involved in the laddering technique can be handled skillfully or ineffectually by the interviewer because, like most forms of therapeutic conversation, the elicitation of the constructs is at least as much an art as a science. Thus, the interviewer needs to gain experience with this technique and try to minimize his/her influence over the constructs given. Neimeyer et al. (2001) provide a set of guidelines and recommendations to aid new users in the administration and interpretation of laddering. They note that one caution to be aware of when laddering is to not make any assumptions about the interviewee’s responses and not to simply apply a dictionary antonym as the contrast to a construct pole. Always ask the interviewee to explicitly state the construct contrast and his or her pole preference even if the answer seems obvious. It would be too easy to make wrong assumptions during the laddering interview, and this mistake could end up restricting the client’s disclosure about the precise idiosyncratic patterns of meaning making that are of interest to clinicians.

General remarks Over the years there have been some criticisms that laddering does not necessarily elicit superordinate constructs; however, recent research is reassuring on this point. On the other hand, the test-retest reliability of laddering has yet to be studied, leaving in question whether the constructs emerging from a particular initial prompt are stable over time. Nonetheless, this technique appears to be very popular due to its flexibility and relatively straightforward administration with the aid of specific guidelines and facilitative questions made available by Neimeyer et al. (2001).

Assessment of Personal Constructs

35

Resistance to Change Grids Description of assessment Resistance to change grids, also pioneered by Hinkle (1965), are based on the idea that superordinate or core constructs will generally be more resistant to modification than subordinate constructs (Winter, 1992). Because these core beliefs are extremely important to us, it is hard for us to challenge or change these core constructs without some resistance. In Hinkle’s original use of this method, a set of constructs was first elicited either by triadic sorts of elements, as in most forms of repertory grid technique, or by laddering. The next step included presenting the client with two of these elicited personal constructs (i.e., sincere-insincere and tolerantprejudiced with sincere and tolerant being the preferred construct poles). Then the respondent was told that he/she would wake up the next morning having changed their position on one of these constructs. Essentially, the respondent would have changed from the preferred construct to the nonpreferred construct for either the first or the second construct but would remain the same on the other. Therefore, in this example the participant would become either insincere or prejudiced, and he or she was asked on which construct he/she would find more difficult or undesirable to change, making a choice whenever possible, except when changing on one construct logically implied changing on the other construct as well (Bannister and Mair, 1968; Hinkle, 1965; Landfield et al., 1990). Each construct was compared with all of the other constructs until there was a complete matrix of paired constructs with one construct in each pair selected as the construct more resistant to change. Fransella et al. (2004) provide a full illustration of a resistance to change grid and instructions on administering and scoring the grids.

Scores yielded Hinkle (1965) estimated the relative resistance to change of the constructs by rank ordering them from high to low resistance to change by counting the number of times the participant chose not to change on that particular construct during the pairing process. It was predicted that superordinate constructs would have more implications and that they would be more resistant to change (Fransella et al., 2004).

36

Personal Construct Methodology

Applications Resistance to change grids have not been used frequently in practice; however, a few research studies have utilized these grids. For instance, Fransella (1972) used resistance to change grids and found that individuals who stutter are resistant to change their patterns of disfluency, despite the distress associated with it. Fransella concluded that a person chooses to stutter because it is in this way that he/she can best predict future events. Thus, in keeping with Kelly’s (1955) Choice Corollary, the person will try to move away from confusion towards stability even if the choice he/she make appears to others to be an unlikely one. For those who stutter, “fluency” may be the mysterious and indefinable implied contrast to the construct “stuttering.” Jones (1992) used resistance to change grids along with a biography exercise to compare core values between doctors and managers who worked together in management development programs. She used the change grid to help identify which values were most important to the participants by discovering the values they were unwilling to change and having them prioritize those values. When the assessments were complete, Jones gave both sides an opportunity to explore their differences, which led to mutual respect. Before the study began, managers and doctors had dramatically different sets of values and often had difficulty communicating and resolving conflicts together. Eventually both the doctors and the managers realized the similarities of their core values even though these constructs held a slightly different meaning in their construction systems.

Psychometrics and unanswered questions Hinkle’s (1965) original study provided evidence for the construct validity of the resistance to change grid in that the laddered constructs (superordinate) had greater resistance to change than more subordinate constructs. Fransella (1972) also found that superordinate constructs were more resistant to change with individuals who stutter. However, stability over time has not yet been explored for resistance to change grids. Thus, more research is needed to support their validity and reliability.

Limitations One reason for the limited interest in this method again could be the lack of a computer program for administering and analyzing resistance to change

Assessment of Personal Constructs

37

grids comparable to the numerous programs designed for repertory grids. However, there is nothing inherently problematic about designing such a program, a step that could have substantial impact in promoting more research on and application of this method.

Advantages and general remarks In theory, resistance to change grids could potentially be useful in revealing which constructs the client would have difficulty changing throughout the course of therapy. Resistance to change is very common in psychotherapy, and typical examples of client resistance include: missing therapy sessions, refusing to engage in therapeutic goals that would lead to change and engaging in behaviors that impede therapeutic improvements (Beutler, Moleiro, and Talebi, 2002). Therefore, an assessment that could analyze the resistance of the client and inform the clinician on how to advance the treatment of the presenting complaint could be appealing to practitioners.

Self-Characterization Description of assessment Kelly (1955) developed the self-characterization as an idiographic narrative assessment, which involves a qualitative analysis by the clinician to identify self-constructions of the client. It consists of a character sketch written in the third person in which the client is asked to take a broad view of himself or herself, rather than to concentrate on focal interests of the therapist. Kelly’s (1955) original instructions for the self-characterization are as follows, In the space that follows, please write a character sketch of John Smith, just as if he were the major character in a book, movie, or play. Write it as it might be written by a friend who knew him intimately and sympathetically, perhaps better than anyone really could know him. Be sure to write it in the third person. For example, start out by saying, “John Smith . . .”.

The omission of a suggested outline for the self-characterization is intentional because imposing such an outline upon the client would result in a considerable loss of spontaneity and a failure to discover the client’s own conceptualization about himself/herself (Winter, 1992). As Kelly (1955, p. 324) noted, the overall “object of this kind of inquiry is to see how the

38

Personal Construct Methodology

client structures a world in relation to which he must maintain himself in some kind of role.” Therefore, the client’s personal construct system is the primary focus of this assessment, but a secondary focus is where the client places himself/herself with respect to the personal categories and dimensions that make up his/her world (Winter, 1992).

Analysis After an initial reading of the self-characterization, the clinician should consider the sequences and transitions, topic and opening sentences, common themes, and other hermeneutic guidelines to assist with the analysis (Neimeyer et al., 2003; Winter, 1992). The possible meaning of each statement in the protocol may then be considered both independently and in the context of the total protocol (Winter, 1992). One of the reasons for not specifying the topical areas that should be covered in the self-characterization is that the clinician is interested in discovering the client’s own selection of context within which the client characteristically identifies herself. The contextual areas chosen by the client indicate where she sees herself as being distinguishable from other people and also where she feels secure enough to be able to elaborate her personal construct system. Some clients write their entire self-characterizations on comparatively safe ground while others take their chances in areas in which they are not so certain about where they stand. It appears that the areas chosen are those in which the client sees enough uncertainty to make exploration interesting and enough structure to make it meaningful. The clinician takes note of the sequence of particular areas as these usually represent a progression either from the well-structured to the more problematical or from the general to the specific. Particular attention is paid to the individuals who are mentioned because they are a sample of the figures who populate the client’s world (Kelly, 1955; Winter, 1992).

Applications and variations Characterizations are extremely flexible and can even be employed to examine the client’s likely response to psychotherapy. Here, the clinician could ask the client to write a characterization of herself as she would like to be, or as she imagines she would be if she lost her symptoms or if therapy were successful (Winter, 1992). Other approaches to writing a selfcharacterization include the personal-record approach that starts off with demographic information such as name, age, sex, marital status, residence,

Assessment of Personal Constructs

39

and so on; the outside to inside approach that goes from superficial appearance to inner reality; and the problem approach that begins with a statement of the principal problem that the client sees herself as facing (Winter, 1992). Alternatively, the sketch can be tailored to focus on a particular area of clinical concern, such as the client’s adaptation in the wake of an important loss (Neimeyer, 2000). Essentially, the self-characterization is a method of eliciting an individual’s constructions, particularly those that are applied to the self (Kelly, 1955). Attention will be paid to the construing of past, present, and future, and it might be beneficial to ask the client to prepare a characterization of the self at different ages for a more extensive autobiography, depending on the presenting problem and the particular therapeutic approach (Mahoney, 2004; Winter, 1992). The characterization can be a valuable clinical tool in that the analysis of the protocol gives the clinician a sense about the willingness of the client to experiment with new outlooks and new approaches to her problems and a sense of how the client will approach therapeutic change. Additionally, the client’s objectives, purposes, and feelings of progress may be explored in the protocol as well as obstacles, handicaps, difficulties, and successful solutions or readjustments to past problems. This assessment also could give the client the opportunity to introduce significant clinical issues that might have been too intimidating to reveal directly to the clinician during the early stages of therapy. Furthermore, self-characterizations can be used to create an enactment sketch that subtly introduces different ways for viewing the self and life, which can then be experimented with in fixed role therapy, in which the therapist and client collaborate in constructing a new role identity for a client to enact for a fixed period of time (Epting and Nazario, 1987; Kelly 1955; Landfield and Epting, 1987; Neimeyer, 1993; Neimeyer et al., 2003; Winter, 1992). Neimeyer et al. (2003) and Neimeyer and Winter (2006) provide a full description of how to write and analyze a self-characterization as well as complete examples of characterizations and the fixed roles that were designed for each to enact. Analysis of a client’s self-characterization can serve many functions in a clinical setting. For example, this tool can be valuable during the assessment phase of therapy, when counseling reaches an unexpected impasse, or to direct the treatment of various personality or social difficulties. A major advantage of these characterizations is that they are extremely flexible and may be adapted in various ways to meet the particular diagnostic or therapeutic needs of the clinician. Therefore, the characterization may not even focus solely on the individual client but may, for example, be a characterization of a marriage (Kremsdorf, 1985), a family (Winter, 1992), or a characterization of a child by its parents (Davis, Stroud, and Green, 1989).

40

Personal Construct Methodology

Psychometrics and unanswered questions There are no published studies on the psychometrics of this assessment. As a hermeneutic technique, typical statistical and psychometric criteria that are applicable to other constructivist assessments are of limited relevance to selfcharacterizations due to the fact that the constructs elicited are difficult to quantify. Instead, criteria applied to qualitative research could be more appropriate. For analyzing the characterization sketch, Yorke (1989) suggests using a technique similar to textual analysis in which an understanding of the respondent would be built up hermeneutically by testing part against part, and part against whole. This process is more time-consuming than having a computer analyze the data as is the case for an assessment like the repertory grid; however, the self-characterization seems to offer a great deal of distinctive information about the client in that it yields a glance into the client’s internal world through a written sample in his or her own personal language. However, quantitative analysis of the self-characterization is nonetheless possible, at least for some features of the text. For example, it would be possible to examine the reliability of this method by coding the constructs in a self-characterization into specific categories using the Classification System for Personal Constructs (CSPC) devised by Feixas et al. (2001), and assessing the level of stability in the concentration of constructs in different categories on repeated administrations. Another possibility would be to explore the convergent validity of characterizations by coding the constructs based on their content and determining if the categories from the characterizations correspond to those coded from other types of assessments (repertory grids, ladders, etc.) given to the same client. No such study has been done to date, and these are just possible suggestions for assessing psychometrics of characterizations in future studies. However, it appears that there will be a limit to the utility of this approach to psychometric adequacy, and analysis should focus principally on qualitative criteria. Note: While this chapter was being written a study conducted by Hardison and Neimeyer (2007) assessed the convergent validity of self characterizations with ladders and repertory grids. Additionally the Classification System for Personal Constructs was used as recommended in this chapter.

Limitations There are constraints to the use of characterizations, as the client may feel uncomfortable revealing certain personal issues, especially early in

Assessment of Personal Constructs

41

treatment. However, given that there is no set format for this method, clients need only reveal what they are comfortable disclosing at that time. Some clients may exaggerate their strengths and positive qualities in order to try to present themselves in the best possible light. Another drawback to this assessment is that clinicians may find it time-consuming to formally analyze the completed characterization because it will require several readings of the entire protocol, which can be 2–3 pages in length. Additional time is needed for examination of each section of the characterization and for exploring each of the 14 guidelines proposed by Neimeyer (1993). However, even an impressionistic reading of the protocol can suggest important issues worthy of therapeutic attention.

Advantages Clients tend to find the writing of characterizations very beneficial, as expressed in the words of one respondent: Writing a self-characterization was a unique chance for self-exploration and discovery at a time in my life I considered transitory and uncertain. At first the task seemed slightly threatening, but as soon as I began to write, the words came easily and comfortably. I began by expressing what I considered concrete and obvious traits of my personality, and subsequently delved deeper into more intimate details as I felt more fluent describing myself through words. The writing process was cathartic, a release which I had not anticipated . . . . By writing the sketch in the third person, I was allowed to step outside the role of myself and observe those aspects of me that would normally be less apparent than if I were writing from my own perspective (Neimeyer et al., 2003, p. 253).

As can be seen, self-characterizations are fairly easy for the clients to complete and can be quite beneficial for the client. Additionally, they are easy for the clinician to administer, and specific guidelines (Neimeyer et al., 2003) exist to aid clinicians in the analysis of the completed characterizations.

Comparison Among Personal Construct Assessments Although several of the assessment methods reviewed above have been the subject of research, little attention has been given to how they relate to one

42

Personal Construct Methodology

another. For example, this review did not turn up any studies including ladders or self-characterizations in comparison with any of the other assessments. Even implication grids and repertory grids have rarely been investigated in relation to each other. Only a few published studies of impgrid and repgrid techniques were found that examined their convergent validity in assessing the connections among the constructs that comprise a personal construct system. In their common form, in which the elements rated are people in the respondent’s life, repertory grids focus more on the social world of the individual and measure systemic or structural properties of construct systems. Thus, Bell (1990) questioned whether repgrids should be used as measures of hierarchical structure because they only yield indirect measures of superordinate and subordinate relationships between constructs. However, existing evidence suggests that they generally converge in their assessment of the overall structure of construct systems, and perhaps even at the level of particular constructs. The encouraging data supporting both methods reinforce Bannister and Mair’s (1968) claim that neither technique should replace the other, as the repgrid may uncover possible construct links of which the participant is unaware, while the impgrid reveals relationships consciously recognized by the participant. Generally, the ideal situation might be to utilize a few of these personal construct assessments in conjunction with each other, if time permits. Each assessment discussed in this chapter seems to have its own strengths and advantages, and each adds a unique perspective of the individual’s construct system. Therefore, it would be ideal to blend the information gathered from two or more assessments in order to gain a greater sense of who the client is and how he or she views various aspects of the world. Each assessment seems to elicit a different type of construct from personal construct systems. For example, the most common focus of repertory grids is to elicit constructs that individuals use to organize their social world, but in fact repgrids are very flexible in investigating different content areas (careers, self-roles, etc.) as anything can be used an element in a grid. Repertory grids are also anchored in concrete contexts of comparison and do not require a great deal of cognitive awareness; therefore, with suitable adaptation repgrids could be used with any age group. In contrast, impgrids and resistance to change grids are more abstract, focusing on constructs only, and for this reason require a higher degree of conceptual sophistication and capacity for “meta-cognition,” making them potentially inappropriate for some populations (e.g., children, those with less capacity for reflection, or mentally challenged individuals).

Assessment of Personal Constructs

43

Self-characterizations, laddering, impgrids, and resistance to change grids tend to focus on self-construing, values and goals, as well as areas of conflict, which are all specific to the individual being assessed. Ladders, impgrids, and resistance to change grids are geared more toward eliciting core identity constructs that individuals value highly and will likely be resistant to change, such as issues of purpose or meaning of life. They are not designed primarily to elicit constructs regarding relationships with other individuals as repertory grids and self-characterizations do. Furthermore, self-characterizations appear primarily to elicit personal constructs that refer to a variety of personality characteristics of the specific individual writing the sketch and often turn up more descriptive or superficial constructs instead of existential core constructs. Implication and resistance to change grids are not as frequently used as the other assessments reviewed in this chapter, which might be due to the fact that these techniques tend to be more complex in their administration and analysis compared to the others. If in the future a more user-friendly method for administering and analyzing implication and resistance to change grids is developed, then these grids might be more appealing to clinicians wanting to uncover the client’s values and beliefs. Mair (1985) emphasized the need to use an assortment of methods instead of relying on a single procedure to attempt to capture the client’s view of the world. He also cautioned against reducing the complexity of a client’s meaning system to a single theme, ignoring contextual factors that could lead to losing sight of the client’s overall intended meaning. We agree with his advice to use a combination of assessments to obtain a fuller picture of the client’s construct system, in effect taking multiple snapshots from different angles as opposed to forcing it into a single frame or perspective.

Suggestions for Future Research Although some systematic research has been conducted to compare each of these distinct assessments with each other, many questions regarding their interrelationships remain unanswered. Researchers could specifically explore the degree of convergence in the areas of complexity and construct differentiation, self-esteem/adjustment, and thematic content of constructs across the various measures, which range from primarily quantitative to primarily qualitative in emphasis.

44

Personal Construct Methodology

According to Neimeyer (1999), personal construct theory has generated thousands of publications, with the majority using the repertory grid technique to study individual construing processes. Fewer studies have included ladders and self-characterizations, and only a handful of publications discuss or utilize Hinkle’s (1965) implication grids and resistance to change grids. Future studies should specifically address the validity, reliability, and effectiveness of each of these latter assessments. Research also is needed to further define the nature of the differences among these methods and whether they measure somewhat different facets of system structure. In conclusion, our purpose in this review has been to bring to the attention of clinicians and researchers a range of constructivist assessments that have already been well established and refined, as well as promising techniques that deserve more consideration in future research studies. The main goal of this review was to accentuate the concerns as well as the strengths of each of these assessments to promote future research that can continue to enhance our understanding of personal constructions in a range of applied contexts. Readers may wish to consult the findings of Hardison & Neimeyer (2007), as these add further detail on the psychometric properties of several of the assessment techniques beyond that provided in the current paper. In general, this study adds to the convergent validity and reliability of several of the methods described in this chapter.

References Adams-Webber, J.R. (1969) Cognitive complexity and sociality. British Journal of Social Clinical Psychology, 8, 211–218. Adams-Webber, J.R. (1970) An analysis of the discriminant validity of several repertory grid indices. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 83–90. Adams-Webber, J.R. (1985) Construing self and others, in Anticipating Personal Construct Psychology (eds F. Epting and A.W. Landfield), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 58–69. Adams-Webber, J.R. (1989) Some reflections on the “meaning” of repertory grid responses. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 77–92. Baker, K.D., Neimeyer, R.A., and Barris, B.P. (1997) Cognitive organization in sociotropic and autonomous inpatient depressives. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 11, 279–297. Bannister, D. (1962a) The nature and measurement of schizophrenic thought disorder. Journal of Mental Science, 108, 825–842.

Assessment of Personal Constructs

45

Bannister, D. (1962b) Personal construct theory: A summary and experimental paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 20, 104–120. Bannister, D. and Fransella, F. (1965) A repertory grid test of schizophrenic thought disorder. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2, 95–102. Bannister, D. and Mair, J.M.M. (1968) The Evaluation of Personal Constructs. Academic Press, New York. Baugh, L.J. (1968) Functionally independent construct scores as a function of role construct repertory test heterogeneity. Master’s thesis. University of Missouri. Bavelas, J.B., Chan, A.S. and Guthrie, J.A. (1976) Reliability and validity of traits measured by Kelly’s repertory grid. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 8, 23–38. Bell, R.C. (1990) Analytic issues in the use of repertory grid technique, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 1 (eds R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer), JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, pp. 25–48. Berzonsky, M. and Neimeyer, G. (1988) Identity status and personal construct systems. Journal of Adolescence, 11, 195–204. Beutler, L.E., Moleiro, C.M., and Talebi, H. (2002) Resistance, in Psychotherapy Relationships that Work: Therapist Contributions and Responsiveness to Patients (ed. J.C. Norcross), Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 129–144. Bieri, J. (1955) Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 51, 263–268. Bieri, J. (1966) Cognitive complexity and personality development, in Experience, Structure and Adaptability (ed. O.J. Harvey), Springer, New York. Bieri, J. and Blacker, E. (1956) The generality of cognitive complexity in the perception of people and inkblots. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 112–117. Bonarius, J. (1965) Research in the personal construct theory of George A. Kelly: Role construct repertory test and basic theory, in Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 2 (ed. B.A. Maher), Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–46. Bonarius, J. (1977) The interaction model of communication: Through experimental research towards existential relevance, in 1976 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (eds J.K. Cole and A.W. Landfield), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Botella, L. and Gallifa, J. (1995) A constructivist approach to the development of personal epistemic assumptions and worldviews. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 8, 1–18. Bringmann, M.W. (1992) Computer-based methods for the analysis and interpretation of personal construct systems, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 2 (eds R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer), JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, pp. 57–90.

46

Personal Construct Methodology

Butt, T. (1995) Ordinal relationships between constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 8, 227–236. Campbell, V.N. (1960) Assumed Similarity, Perceived Sociometric Balance, and Social Influence. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Colorado. Cannell, J.E. (1985) Pastoral psychology: A personal construct perspective, in Anticipating Personal Construct Psychology (eds F. Epting and A.W. Landfield eds), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 280–291. Caputi, P., Breiger, R., and Pattison, P. (1990) Analyzing implications grids using hierarchical models. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 3, 77–90. Caputi, P. and Reddy, P. (1999) A comparison of triadic and dyadic methods of personal construct elicitation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 12, 253–264. Costigan, J., Closs, B., and Eustace, P. (2000) Laddering: Theoretical and methodological contingencies, in The Person in Society (ed. J.W. Scheer), Psychosozial Verlag, Giessen, Germany, pp. 150–159. Crockett, W. (1965) Cognitive complexity and impression formation, in Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 2 (ed. B.A. Maher), New York: Academic Press, pp. 47–90. Cronbach, L.J. (1955) Processes affecting scores on understanding of others and assumed similarity. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 117–193. Danforth, W.J. (1968) An internal consistency study of conceptual organization within personal construct theory. Doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri. Davis, H., Stroud, A., and Green, L. (1989) Child characterization sketch. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 323–337. Dempsey, D.J. and Neimeyer, R.A. (1995) Organization of personal knowledge: Convergent validity of implications grids and repertory grids as measures of system structure. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 8, 251–261. Epting, F.R. and Nazario, A., Jr., (1987) Designing a fixed role therapy: Issues, techniques, and modifications, in Personal Construct Casebook (eds R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer), Springer, New York, pp. 277–289. Feixas, G. (1992) Personal construct approaches to family therapy, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 2 (eds R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer), JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, pp. 215–255. Feixas, G. and Cornejo-Alvarez, J.M. (2004) Gridcor (Version 4.0) [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved from http://www.terapiacognitiva.net/ record/pag/index.htm Feixas, G., Geldschlager, H., and Neimeyer, R.A. (2002) Content analysis of personal constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 1–19. Feixas, G., Moliner, J.L., Montes, J.N., et al. (1992) The stability of structural measures derived from repertory grids. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 5, 25–39.

Assessment of Personal Constructs

47

Fjeld, S.P. and Landfield, A.W. (1961) Personal construct theory consistency. Psychological Reports, 8, 127–129. Fransella, F. (1965) The effects of imposed rhythm and certain aspects of personality on the speech of stutterers. Master’s thesis. University of London. Fransella, F. (1972) Personal Change and Reconstruction. Academic Press, London. Fransella, F. (1981) Repertory grid technique, in Personality: Theory, Measurement and Research (ed. F. Fransella), Methuen, London. Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. (1967) A validation of repertory grid technique as a measure of political construing. Acta Psychologica, 26, 97–106. Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. (1977) A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique, Academic Press, London. Fransella, F., Bell, R., and Bannister, D. (2004) A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Fransella, F. and Crisp, A.H. (1970) Conceptual organization and weight change. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 18, 176–185. Fromm, M. (2004) Introduction to the Repertory Grid Interview, Waxmann, Munster. Hagans, C.L., Neimeyer, G.J., and Goodholm, C.R.J. (2000) The effect of elicitation methods on personal construct differentiation and valence. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 13, 155–173. Hardison, H. G., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2007). Numbers and Narratives: Quantitative and Qualitative Convergence Across Constructivist Assessments. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 4, 285–308. Hill, R.A. (1995) Content analysis for creating and depicting aggregated personal construct derived cognitive maps, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 3 (eds R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer), JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, pp. 101–132. Hinkle, D.N. (1965) The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications. Doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbus. Honess, T. (1976) Cognitive complexity and social prediction. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 23–31. Honess, T. (1978) A comparison of the implication and repertory grid techniques. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 305–314. Honess, T. (1979) Children’s implicit theories of their peers: A developmental analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 417–424. Hunt, D.E. (1951) Studies in role concept repertory: Conceptual consistency. Master’s thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus. Jankowicz, A.D. (1987) Whatever became of George Kelly? Applications and implications. American Psychologist, 42, 481–487. Jankowicz, A.D. (2003) The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Jones, H. (1992) Biography in management and organization development. Management Education and Development, 23, 199–206.

48

Personal Construct Methodology

Jones, R.E. (1954) Identification in terms of personal constructs. Doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbus. Jones, R.E. (1961) Identification in terms of personal constructs: Reconciling a paradox in theory. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 276. Keen, T.R. (1977) Target – teaching appraisal by repertory grid techniques. 2nd International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology, Oxford. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. 1 W.W. Norton & Co., New York. Kelly, G.A. (1963) A Theory of Personality: The Psychology of Personal Constructs, W.W. Norton & Co., New York. Kelsall, P.N. and Strongman, K.T. (1978) Emotional experience and the implications grid. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 51, 243–251. Kremsdorf, R. (1985) An extension of fixed-role therapy with a couple, in Anticipating Personal Construct Psychology (eds F. Epting and A.W. Landfield), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 216–224. Krieger, S.R., Epting, F.R., and Leitner, L.M. (1974) Personal constructs, threat, and attitudes toward death. Omega, 5, 299–310. Landfield, A.W. (1971) Personal Construct Systems in Psychotherapy, Rand McNally, Chicago. Landfield, A.W. (1977) Interpretive man: The enlarged self image, in 1976 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (eds J.K. Cole and A.W. Landfield), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Landfield, A.W. and Cannell, J.E. (1988) Ways of assessing functionally independent construction, meaningfulness, and construction in hierarchy, in Cognition and Personal Structure (eds J. Mancuso and M.L.G. Shaw), New York, Praeger, pp. 67–90. Landfield, A.W., Danforth, W.J., and Baugh, L.J. (1968) Functionally independent construction (FIC): Studies of consistency. Psychological Reports, 23, 337–338. Landfield, A.W. and Epting, F.R. (1987) Personal Construct Psychology: Clinical and Personality Assessment, Human Sciences Press, Inc., New York. Landfield, A.W., Stefan, R., and Dempsey, D. (1990) Single and multiple self implications for change grids: Studies of consistency. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 3, 423–436. Leitner, L.M. (1995) Dispositional assessment techniques in experiential personal construct psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 8, 53–74. Liseth, O.J., Ford, K.M., Adams-Webber, J., et al. (1993) Gridgraph: Graphical representation of repertory grid data. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 6, 295–300. Mahoney, M.J. (2003) Constructive Psychotherapy, Guilford, New York. Mahoney, M.J. (2004) Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative, revised edn, Percheron Press, Clinton Corners, NY.

Assessment of Personal Constructs

49

Mair, M. (1964) The derivation, reliability and validity of grid measures: Some problems and suggestions. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 17, p. 55. Mair, M. (1985) The long quest to know, in Anticipating Personal Construct Psychology (eds F. Epting and A.W. Landfield), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 3–14. Margolius, O. (1980) Conflicts in construing the self: Differences between neurotics and normals. Master’s thesis, North East London Polytechnic. Marsh, M. and Stanley, R. (1995) Assessment of self and others during treatment for anorexia nervosa. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 8, 97–116. Metzler, A.E., Gorden, H., and Neimeyer, G.J. (2002) The effect of repertory grid scale size and rating direction on structural measures of differentiation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 95–107. Metzler, A.E. and Neimeyer, G. (1988) Vocational hierarchies: How do we count the ways? International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 205–218. Mitsos, S.B. (1958) Representative elements in role construct technique. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22, 311–313. Neimeyer, G.J. (1985) Personal constructs in the counseling of couples, in Anticipating Personal Construct Psychology (eds F. Epting and A.W. Landfield), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 201–215. Neimeyer, G.J. (2002) Towards reflexive scrutiny in repertory grid methodology. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 89–94. Neimeyer, G.J. and Hagans, C.L. (2002) More madness in our method? The effects of repertory grid variations on construct differentiation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 139–160. Neimeyer, G.J., Neimeyer, R.A., Hagans, C.L., et al. (2002) Is there madness in our method? The effects of repertory grid variations on measures of construct system structure, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology: New Directions and Perspectives, Vol. 5 (eds R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer), Praeger, New York, pp. 161–200. Neimeyer, G.J. and Tolliver, R. (2002) The effects of construct examples on the content and structure of personal construct systems. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 127–138. Neimeyer, R.A. (1985) The Development of Personal Construct Psychology, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Neimeyer, R.A. (1993) Constructivist approaches to the measurement of meaning, in Constructivist Assessment: A Casebook (ed. G.J. Neimeyer), Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 58–103. Neimeyer, R.A. (1994) The threat index and related methods, in Death Anxiety Handbook (ed. R.A. Neimeyer), Taylor & Francis, New York, pp. 61–101. Neimeyer, R.A. (1999) Constructivist psychotherapies: Features, foundations, and future directions, in Constructivism in Psychotherapy (eds R.A. Neimeyer

50

Personal Construct Methodology

and M.J. Mahoney), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 11–38. Neimeyer, R.A. (2000) Lessons of Loss: A Guide to Coping, McGraw Hill, New York. Neimeyer, R.A. (2001) Repertory grid technique, in The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 3rd edn (eds W.E. Craighead and C.B. Nemeroff), John Wiley & Co., Inc., New York, pp. 1394–1395. Neimeyer, R.A., Anderson, A., and Stockton, L. (2001) Snakes versus ladders: A validation of laddering technique as a measure of hierarchical structure. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 83–103. Neimeyer, R.A., Baker, K.D., and Neimeyer, G.J. (1990) The current status of personal construct theory: Some scientometric data, in Advances in Personal Construct Theory, Vol. 1 (eds G.J. Neimeyer and R.A. Neimeyer), JAI Press, Greenwich, CN, pp. 3–22. Neimeyer, R.A. and Bridges, S.K. (2003) Postmodern approaches to psychotherapy, in Essential Psychotherapies, 2nd edn (eds A.S. Gurman and S.B. Messer.), Guilford Press, New York, pp. 272–316. Neimeyer, R.A. and Feixas, G. (1990) The role of homework and skill acquisition in the outcome of cognitive therapy for depression. Behavior Therapy, 21, 281–292. Neimeyer, R.A., Neimeyer, G.J., and Landfield, A.W. (1983) Conceptual differentiation, integration, and empathic prediction. Journal of Personality, 51, 185–191. Neimeyer, R.A., Ray, L., Hardison, H., et al. (2003) Fixed role in a fishbowl: Consultation-based fixed role therapy as a pedagogical technique. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 16, 249–271. Neimeyer, R.A. and Winter, D.A. (2006) Behavior as an experiment: Betweensession assignments in personal construct therapy, in Handbook of Homework Assignments in Psychotherapy (eds N. Kazantzis and L. L’Abate), Kluwer, New York. O’Loughlin, S. (1989) Use of repertory grids to assess understanding between partners in marital therapy. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 143–147. Pedersen, F.A. (1958) Consistency data on the role construct repertory test. Manuscript. Ohio State University, Columbus. Ravenette, A.T. (1977) Personal construct theory: An approach to the psychological investigation of children and young people, in New Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (ed. D. Bannister), Academic Press, New York, pp. 251–280. Reeve, J., Owens, R.G., and Neimeyer, G.J. (2002) Using examples in repertory grids: The influence on construct elicitation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 121–126.

Assessment of Personal Constructs

51

Rowles, G.D. (1972) Choice in geographic space: Exploring a phenomenological approach to vocational decision-making., Master’s thesis. University of Bristol. Sewell, K.W., Adams-Webber, J., Mitterer, J., et al. (1992) Computerized repertory grids: Review of the literature. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 5, 1–23. Sheehan, M.J. (1977) Constructs and conflict in depression. Master’s thesis. University of Surrey. Slater, P. (1974) The reliability and significance of a grid. Master’s thesis. George’s Hospital Medical School, London. Smith, H.J. (2000) The reliability and validity of structural measures derived from repertory grids. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 13, 221–230. Sperlinger, J. (1976) Aspects of stability in the rep grid. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 49, 341–347. Winer, L.R. and Vazquez-Abad, J. (1997) Repertory grid technique in the diagnosis of learner difficulties and the assessment of conceptual change in physics. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 10, 363–386. Winter, D.A. (1983) Logical inconsistency in construct relationships: Conflict or complexity. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 56, 79–88. Winter, D.A. (1992) Personal Construct Psychology in Clinical Practice: Theory, Research and Applications, Routledge, New York. Wright, R.P. and Lam, S.K. (2002) Comparing apples with apples: The importance of element wording in grid applications. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 109–119. Yorke, M. (1989) The intolerable wrestle: Words, numbers, and meanings. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 65–76.

2

Qualitative Methods in Personal Construct Research: A Set of Possible Criteria Linda L. Viney and Sue Nagy Construct approaches are epistemologically and ontologically consistent with qualitative research methods that focus on the interpretation of meanings. Meanings cannot be disconnected from their context, and must be understood in terms of both the similarities and the differences between people. Qualitative research is the rigorous art of interpreting the meanings of others. It is well placed to tease out the variety of ways in which a phenomenon may be understood. In this chapter, we make five major points: (i) psychology and psychotherapy have not made sufficient use of qualitative research methods; (ii) the decision to use qualitative or quantitative methods should be grounded in the epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying the research question; (iii) construct research is well suited, epistemologically and ontologically, to the use of qualitative methods; (iv) established criteria, that is, credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, can be applied to qualitative methods to demonstrate their application; and (v) some criticism can be made of these criteria.

Psychology has not Made Enough Use of Qualitative Research Methods Psychological researchers have not heeded Kelly’s (1965) warning about the dangers of limiting study only to those questions “that invite empirical answers.” The major focus has been on questions that can be answered Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

54

Personal Construct Methodology

quantitatively and analyzed statistically (Botella, 2000; Rennie, 2003; Salmon, 1977). Restricting research only to those phenomena that are quantifiable implies that nonquantifiable knowledge has little value. The goal of quantitative analysis is the development of understanding through measuring the components of a phenomena and investigating the relationships among them. The goal of qualitative analysis, however, is understanding through interpretation of the whole phenomena within its context (Brinkman and Kvale, 2005). Both are needed to generate a complete picture of the human experiences that are the focus of the psychology (Fransella and Neimeyer, 2003). Elliott (1999) has argued the importance of qualitative research in a special issue on Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy Research. He has contrasted it with quantitative research, in terms of linguistic rather than numerical descriptions, unlimited rather than limited questions and finding something new rather than hypothesistesting. Seeman (2002) has also recommended qualitative research for humanist researchers.

Decisions to Use Qualitative or Quantitative Methods Should be Grounded in the Epistemological and Ontological Assumptions Underlying the Research Questions All research is grounded, implicitly or explicitly, in philosophy; an ontological and epistemological position is assumed within any selection of data gathering and analysis methods. To be able to comment with any confidence on the outcomes of a study, it is necessary to demonstrate congruence between the study’s ontology, epistemology, methodology and method (White and Nagy, 1994). We distinguish qualitative (or textual) data from quantitative (or numerical) data, and we distinguish between qualitative analysis (resulting in words) and quantitative analysis (resulting in numbers). Qualitative research is, therefore, that which involves qualitative analysis of qualitative data.

Personal Construct Research, Epistemologically and Ontologically, is Well-Suited to Qualitative Methods The personal construct view of research is philosophically at odds with positivism. Positivism is based on the sometimes explicit, and sometimes

Qualitative Methods in Personal Construct Research

55

implicit, epistemological and ontological assumptions that a relatively detached observer has the potential to discover generalizable, context and value free truths based on similarities between people (Harr
e, 1981). People are seen as “reactive, determined, and ontologically isolated from their environment” (Vasco, 1994, p. 2). While this position is, of course, extreme, and not seriously accepted by most people researching within a positivist paradigm, much research continues to be based on these key premises. The personal construct (also known as naturalistic or interpretive) paradigm is founded on the ontological position that there is no single, dominant reality, but that realities and meanings are culturally and socially determined (Apelgren, 2003). These meanings cannot be disconnected from their context, and must be understood in terms of both the similarities and the differences between people (McLeod, 2001). The raw data of research conducted within a construct paradigm are primarily textual rather than numerical, and frequently gathered from unstructured or semi-structured interviews (Feixas, 2002; Stiles, 1999). Vasco (1994) describes the difference between constructivists and positivists (or empiricists) as one of root metaphor. The positivist views the world as a machine that can best be understood in terms of its elements and the relationships between them. For the constructivists, the world is a living organism, constantly changing and only able to be understood contextually (Seeman, 2002). For example, personal construct psychology, one of the major constructivist theories, views both researcher and informant as engaged in a continual process directed towards making sense of the world (Bannister, 1981; Kelly, 1955/1991; Leitner, 1985) and as “proactive creators of . . . reality, not detached observers of it” (Herman and Heesacker, 1991, p. 24). The construct epistemology holds that the researcher/participant relationship is interdependent, and that this interdependence must be acknowledged, rather than denied, as a part of the research methodology. The decision to use qualitative or quantitative methods or a mixture of both should be based on the most epistemologically and ontologically appropriate method for addressing the research question (Guba, 1981; Henwood and Pidgeon, 1992; Patton, 2002). For example, the interpretations that clients use to make sense of their experience, may not be amenable to quantification, while evaluation of the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions may be usefully studied statistically (Lyons, 1999; Maykut and Morehouse, 1994; Polkinghorne, 1991).

56

Personal Construct Methodology

Whatever the method, it must be epistemologically and ontologically consistent with the nature of the object, entity or phenomenon under study. To argue otherwise is to overlook the issue that the goal of research is to produce useful knowledge (Patton, 2002). Far more fruitful than classifying research methods into less than adequate dichotomies, is to develop and apply criteria so that, whatever the method, the research has been conducted in an exacting and honest manner and the results are convincing.

Established Criteria of Rigor can be Applied to Qualitative Research Methods Now we address a set of criteria for the rigor of the qualitative analysis of textual data. While the use of the words “reliability” and “validity” seem to be well accepted in the evaluation of quantitative research, there are a variety of terms that have been used to describe the evaluation of qualitative analysis. Is it that the findings are “trustworthy” and “relevant” (Guba, 1981), or “credible” (Patton, 2002)? Or is it that the findings have not been “verified” (Miles and Huberman, 1994) or worse, are not “verifiable”? According to Miles and Huberman (1994), the main problems in the acceptance of qualitative research have been: (a) that statistically based conclusions are believed to be more accurate than human judgements and (b) that qualitative researchers have failed to detail the methods they have used to arrive at their conclusions and have thereby failed to give readers the opportunity to judge the relevance of the findings to their situation. Qualitative research provides findings which produce greater understanding of the complexity of the studied phenomenon than quantitative research, and therefore may have greater relevance to a range of human problems. Each of the four criteria proposed is now discussed, in turn, together with suggested strategies for meeting them.

Credibility Credibility is similar to internal validity. It is the extent to which the findings represent the beliefs/feelings and values of the participants, rather than “a flight of fancy” on the part of the researcher (Elliott, 1999). In qualitative

Qualitative Methods in Personal Construct Research

57

research, checks must be provided so that decisions made in the process of data analysis result in credible conclusions and so that appealing and dramatic data are not over emphasized. Miles and Huberman (1994) warn against conclusions that arise from a passion for tidying up loose ends of data that don’t quite fit the conclusions. A researcher, for example, may be tempted to develop theory from those data that make logical sense and to ignore or underplay less cooperative data that upset the neatness of the theory. They argue that the result may be a “holistic fallacy,” resulting from a tendency to interpret events ‘as more patterned and congruent’ than can be justified from the data (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 230). We now present some examples of the ways that credibility may be threatened that have been raised in the literature. We further discuss how these threats may be averted. Managing the influence of prior theory The first example of threat to credibility is the intrusion of the researcher’s expectations or prior theories into the analysis process so that they assume priority over the data from the participants (Morse, 1992). It is axiomatic that construct inquiry is value-bound (Lincoln and Guba, 2000). Prior theories about the outcomes of the study, therefore, have the potential to influence the researchers’ interpretations of the data. Researchers are as psychologically influenced by their anticipations as are the researched (Botella, 2000; Kelly, 1955/1991). Guba (1981) advocates that researchers resolve this problem by revealing their philosophical orientations and the epistemological assumptions behind the questions they ask and the conclusions they draw. This may be done by taping one’s presuppositions about the findings or by developing a list of anticipated codes. Declaring one’s presuppositions prior to the data gathering and analysis process may do two things. First, it may reduce the temptation to distort interpretations and conclusions to fit the researcher’s prior theory (Henwood and Pidgeon, 1992). Second, when published along with the outcomes of the study, declaration of one’s presuppositions may enable readers to make their own judgments about the researcher’s influence. Managing the interdependence of participants and researchers A second threat to credibility arises from the interdependent nature of the relationship between the researcher and the participants. This relationship may unduly influence both data and interpretations. Researchers, for example, who are present at the data gathering site

58

Personal Construct Methodology

for an extended period of time have greater opportunities to become aware of important patterns or “pervasive qualities” (Guba, 1981). This may be at the expense of the researcher becoming over-involved or “going native” (Guba, 1981; Miles and Huberman, 1994). “Going native” refers to the risk of researchers becoming unduly influenced by the explanations of local participants and losing their own perspective with the result that the study veers into a side track. This problem can be reduced by having a range of participants representing different aspects of the phenomena under study (Miles and Huberman, 1994) and by continual peer debriefing and reflective analysis of hypotheses, presuppositions and suppositions.

Improving the credibility of data gathering and analysis methods A third threat arises from the potential effects of data gathering and analysis methods on the conclusions to be drawn from those data. There are two main ways by which one can improve the data gathering and analysis methods of a study. The first is the use of triangulation and the second involves the constant checking of the findings, conclusions and/or emerging theory against the data.

Improving credibility: triangulation Triangulation is an important means of reducing distortion in the findings. It is a technique for examining a phenomenon from multiple perspectives and comparing the results. According to Jick (1979, pp. 603–604), it also serves to “enrich our understanding by allowing for new or deeper dimensions to emerge.” Triangulation can be used to enhance the credibility of the findings in four possible ways: triangulation of data sources, of analysis methods, of analysts and of theoretical perspectives (Patton, 2002). Triangulating data sources draws upon information from multiple sources and sites. Glaser and Strauss (1967) promote the notion of constant comparison as a within methods means of checking internal consistency. Constant comparison is a process whereby the researcher is continually alert to the similarities and differences between categories, cases and theoretical perspectives so that theory is able to emerge in its most full and rich form. Patton (2002) suggests triangulation of data sources by contrasting privately and publicly expressed views on the phenomena under study and by comparing the points of view of different people.

Qualitative Methods in Personal Construct Research

59

“Confidence in the results grows considerably” when different methods yield similar results (Jick, 1979, p. 608). The results of different data gathering techniques may be compared, for example interview data can be compared with observational data or with written records (patients’ records, diaries, newsletters, newspapers, photographs, drawings, etc.). Participants may be asked to confirm the interpretations thus obtaining verification from the informants themselves. This technique has been recommended previously for researchers using personal construct theory (Kelly, 1965; Viney, 1987). Guba (1981) asserts that this is the single most important credibility check. He suggests that participants should be given an opportunity to check interpretations during the analysis phase, as well as to check the final report after the analysis is completed. He also advises researchers to document the way in which the findings were altered as a result of these checks. All research methods have their particular weaknesses. Multiple data analysis techniques are means of subjecting a finding “to the onslaught of a series of imperfect measures” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 234). Nonetheless, the measures should be as independent and generally robust as possible. The effectiveness of between methods triangulation rests on the assumption that the weakness in a single method will be “compensated for by the counter-balancing strengths of another” (Jick, 1979, p. 604). This strategy assumes, of course, that the methods do not share the same weaknesses. Although it has been noted that each method has its assets and liabilities, triangulation tries to exploit the assets and neutralize, rather than compound the liabilities (Jick, 1979). Triangulation of analysts can safeguard researchers against distraction by seductive data at the expense of more mundane, but nevertheless significant data. Guba (1981) argues for what he calls “stepwise replication” of the analysis. This involves two halves of the research team working independently on the analysis. Consultations are held at various milestones in the research to cross check on interpretations and iron out discrepancies. Once codes or categories are refined and the process of applying them to the data is complete, another researcher should be asked to code the data. Mapping rules for categories need to be well defined and criteria for inclusion or exclusion from the category should be clearly stated (Turner, 1987). Resulting discrepancies will highlight vaguely defined coding categories and differences in the coding process.

60

Personal Construct Methodology

Triangulation in summary In arguing for the importance of triangulation to the establishment of credibility, Guba (1981, p. 85) goes so far as to assert that “no item ought to be accepted that cannot be verified from at least two sources.” Such sources might include different sources of data, the results of different methods of investigation, or the results of data analysis by different people. Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 235) argue that if researchers: self-consciously set out to collect and double-check findings, using multiple sources and modes of evidence, the verification process will largely be built into the data gathering process, and little more need be done than to report on one’s procedures.

Patton (2002), however, has identified some of the limitations of triangulation. Comparative results, he argues, may not eventuate as qualitative and quantitative methods tend to answer different questions. The results may conflict, perhaps because the operationalizing of variables is different in the different methods. He points out that it is useful to check out why there are differences. It may well be that “different kinds of data have captured different things and so the analyst attempts to understand the reasons for the differences” (Patton, 2002, p. 467). Nevertheless, Patton (2002) argues that, for all its limitations, triangulation is still worth using, for wherever triangulation results in agreement, the general credibility of the conclusions is greatly enhanced. Improving credibility: testing emerging theory against the data Of critical importance to the credibility of the research are comprehensive checks of the fit between emerging theory and the data. There are a number of ways in which these might be effected. 1. Once themes and their linkages have been revealed, the researchers should look for competing hypotheses arising from the data and deliberately try to disprove them (Guba, 1981; Patton, 2002). Credibility is enhanced when interpretations are checked against all others to ensure there are no contradictions. 2. Negative cases which do not fit the patterns should be sought and the patterns inspected to see if broadening of pattern definitions would help accommodate them. Large numbers of negative cases throw serious doubt on the credibility of the emerging pattern. Apparent

Qualitative Methods in Personal Construct Research

61

contradictions in data and the existence of negative cases should be interpreted and reported (Guba, 1981; Patton, 2002). 3. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest a series of other checks for verification of data and interpretations; checking against any “hard facts,” checking against alternative accounts, posing possible ulterior motives to the participants for their denial or acknowledgment.

Transferability Transferability is similar to the concept of external validity. It is concerned with the extent to which the findings are applicable to other settings. Transferability can be enhanced, first, by providing as detailed a description of the study context as possible, and, second, by improving the representativeness of the participants and of the data. Describing the study context The philosophy of interpretive research is based on the notion that reality is context-bound (Lincoln and Guba, 2000). The construing of research participants can only be understood within the context to which it applies (Kelly, 1955/1991). Removing information from its context results in loss of meaning and therefore conclusions may not apply in another context. The interpretive position holds that, because reality is related to the context, it is only possible to transfer the findings to another setting or situation in which the context is similar. Transferability is, then, defined as the relevance of conclusions to setting other than that studied. It is, therefore, critical to its transferability that the context of a particular study is clearly explained. Guba (1981) recommends the gathering and reporting of ”thick descriptive data” that allows the study context to be described as fully possible so that similar contexts can be recognized. The reader is then able to decide about the value of the research in another context. In interpretive inquiry, therefore, the onus for decisions about transferability shifts from the researcher to the reader of the research. Improving the representativeness of the participants and the data In addition to the need to only transfer conclusions to contexts that are similar to that studied, it also makes sense that conclusions that are representative of the context that is studied are more likely to be successfully applied. For that reason, sampling of the greatest diversity of perceptions will contribute to the transferability of the findings. Unless

62

Personal Construct Methodology

concerted efforts are made to ensure representativeness, it is likely that an “elite bias” will occur and the participants will be the “most articulate and high status of the group” (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The relevance of the study may be threatened by over-emphasizing the relative importance of their views and by ”not placing them in their proper perspective” (Sandelowski, 1986). Representativeness in qualitative research often refers to the data rather than the sample. Theoretical saturation and theoretical sampling are recommended by Strauss and Corbin (1990) as ways of avoiding this problem. Theoretical saturation involves continuing to gather and analyze data until there are no new occurrences of themes (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Theoretical sampling involves sampling of all the concepts that have “proven theoretical relevance to the evolving theory”(Strauss and Corbin 1990, p. 176). Sampling then, should be from all relevant sites, types of participants, theoretical concepts and so on. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest two ways of improving the representativeness of samples: (a) sample randomly for the total number of people and phenomena under study; this may mean checking that the data are representative and include more sites, participants and questions, where necessary, and (b) increase the number of cases (people, events or processes). Sampling is often a problem because of the enormous amount of data generated. Often reported studies have fewer than 20 cases. The transferability of their results is questionable. Representativeness can be enhanced by randomly selecting the sample (Miles and Huberman, 1994), and ensuring the highest possible response rate. With the advent of computerized qualitative analysis programs (Fielding and Lee, 1991; Richards and Richards, 1987; Tesch, 1990, 1991; Weitzman and Miles, 2001), it is now possible to keep track of much larger databases and the limitations on sample sizes, in qualitative analysis are not as great as they have been in the past. Another check on representativeness is that of ensuring, where possible, that events that participants claim are frequent, are indeed frequent, and not just those which have the most impact on them and therefore more likely to be remembered (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Longitudinal studies which consist of multiple interviews with the same person can help provide evidence of the endurance of themes “and prevent the interpreter from emphasizing a nonrecurring, idiosyncratic episode, statement, or behaviour”(Benner, 1985). This process improves the capacity of the report to embody the typicalness or representativeness of the observed events or responses in the lives of the subjects (Sandelowski, 1986).

Qualitative Methods in Personal Construct Research

63

Dependability Dependability is similar to the positivist concept of reliability which refers to the extent that observations deviate from their true value (Kidder and Judd, 1986). Clearly, such definitions have little value in constructivist research that disclaims the existence of a “single truth” (Gon¸calves, 1994). To Kelly (Bannister and Fransella, 1986, p. 54) reliability is the extent to which a measure is insensitive to change. In such research, dependability or consistency of interpretations is a more useful concept because it refers to the extent that variations in the data can be accounted for by the changes in the phenomena under study (Elliott, 1999). The balance between acceptable and unacceptable inconsistencies is a delicate one. The nature and philosophy of construct research requires that allowances must be made for the inconsistencies revealed by different realities. Kirk and Miller (1986) give the example of the different accounts of the sexuality mores of Samoans produced by Mead and Freeman. Mead reported a great deal of sexual activity among young Samoan girls; Freeman reported the value that Samoans placed on virginity. The discrepancy was explained by the sources of data and the characteristics of the researchers: Mead studied the young girls when she herself was of a similar age and social status, whereas Freeman interviewed fathers at a time when he was of similar age and status to them. These examples illustrate the need for comprehensive field notes so that information is available to account for such discrepancies. Lincoln and Guba (2000) contend that it is important also to establish an “audit trail” that documents the entire data gathering and analysis process. An example cited by Brink and Woods (1988) serves to illustrate this point. Two field researchers produced very different accounts of the same Mexican town. In fact, they had talked to different people at different times and asked different questions. Had they documented their procedures in greater detail, apparent contradictions such as the differing accounts of the same town, would have been accounted for and explained. When data that are gathered by different researchers, from different members of a group result in similar findings, confidence in the conclusions is naturally heightened. A lack of agreement, however, does not necessarily mean that the conclusions are unfounded. The case of Mead and Freeman illustrates the need for having a range of observers gathering data about a phenomenon from a range of participants, if one is to end up with a full picture.

64

Personal Construct Methodology

Confirmability We now briefly discuss the last criteria, that of the confirmability of the findings. Confirmability refers to the extent to which conclusions are able to be verified by others. Its goals are similar to the objectivity and replicability claims of positivist research. The context-bound nature of interpretive inquiry mitigates against any notion of replicability as it studies a particular place at particular time. Many qualitative researchers (Boyatsis, 1998; Guba, 1981; Henwood and Pidgeon, 1992; Kirk and Miller, 1986; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Sandelowski, 1986; Strauss and Corbin, 1990) have emphasized the need for thorough documentation of the processes by which the study was designed and the data were gathered, interpreted and described (Kirk and Miller, 1986). Once again the audit trail is a useful technique. Lincoln and Guba (2000) recommend keeping a journal of reflections during the study which can provide the basis for the study report. Thorough documentation enables readers to judge whether another researcher at this time and place and using this methodology would arrive at similar conclusions. They also recommend that “a confirmability audit” be undertaken in which the audit ensures that data exist in support for every interpretation, and the interpretations are consistent with the data.

Some Criticisms Four criticisms of the four criteria proposed can be made. Firstly and secondly, it can be argued that they, being essentially based on the measurement standards of reliability and validity, are inappropriate epistemologically and ontologically for these purposes. Thirdly, Guba and Lincoln (1989) and Manning (1997) have suggested that authenticity, with an emphasis on hermeneutics, be another criterion. Fourthly, Willig (2001) has argued that such criteria should be comprehensive and sequential, so, these criteria can be seen not to be useful in these ways.

Conclusions Kelly (1965) underlined the importance to “good” research of “concerning itself with the kind of questions to be asked, not with answers to questions

Qualitative Methods in Personal Construct Research

65

thoughtlessly posed or taken for granted.” Good research must concern itself with the selection of the best method of obtaining the answer to the question. Qualitative research is of great interest to psychologists and psychotherapists who take the constructivist approach. We recommend that, in order to maintain rigor, these four criteria should be applied to such research: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Fossey et al. (2002), more recently, has recommended a set of criteria that focus on standards of rigor that are both methodological and interpretative. Their interpretive standards parallel those criteria presented in this chapter; with credibility broken down into authenticity and reciprocity, and transferability described as typicality, dependability as coherence and confirmability as permeability. As personal construct researchers aiming to understand the different ways in which people make sense of their worlds, we must try to gather data that reflect as fully as possible the systems of meanings of our participants. We have at our disposal a multiplicity of methods that, when rigorously applied, optimize our chances of finding the answers to a variety of important research questions and that preserve the richness and complexity of human experience (Apelgren, 2003). The development and use of rigorous qualitative research methods can only lead to better construct research.

References Apelgren, B. M (2003) Researching lived experience, in Psychological Constructivism and the Social World (eds G. Chiari and M.L. Nuzzo), Franco Angeli, Milano. Bannister, D. (1981) Personal construct theory and research method, in Human Inquiry (eds P. Reason and J. Rowan), Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 191–199. Bannister, D. and Fransella, F. (1986) Inquiring Man: The Psychology of Personal Constructs, 3rd edn, Croom Helm, London. Benner, P. (1985) Quality of life: A phenomenological perspective on explanation, prediction and understanding in nursing science. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 1–14. Botella, L. (2000) Personal construct psychology, constructivism and psychotherapy research, in The Person in Society: Challenges to Constructivist Theory (ed. J. Scheer), Psychosozial Verlag, Giessen, Germany. Boyatsis, R.C. (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information, Sage, London.

66

Personal Construct Methodology

Brink, P.J. and Woods, M.J. (1988) Basic Steps in Planning Nursing Research: From Question to Proposal, 3rd edn, Jones & Bartlett, Boston. Brinkman S. and Kvale, S. (2005) Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 157–182. Elliott, R. (1999) Editor’s introduction to a special issue on qualitative psychotherapy research: definitions, themes and discoveries. Psychotherapy Research, 9, 251–257. Feixas, M. (2002). Textual analysis of therapeutic discourse, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology (eds G.J. Neimeyer and R.A. Neimeyer), JAI, New York. Fielding, N.G. and Lee, R. M. (eds) (1991) Using Computers in Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Fransella, F. and Neimeyer, R.A. (2003) George Alexander Kelly: the man and his theory, in International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology (ed. F. Fransella), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Fossey, E, Harvey, C., McDermot, et al. (2002) Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717–732. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, New York. Gon¸calves, O.F. (1994) From epistemological truth to existential meaning in cognitive narrative psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 7, 107–118. Guba, E.G., (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–92. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park. Harr
e, R. (1981) The positivist-empiricist approach and its alternative, in Human Inquiry (eds P. Reason and J. Rowan), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 3–17. Henwood, K.L. and Pidgeon, N.F. (1992) Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 97–111. Herman, R.A. and Heesacker, M. (1991) A developing model of exploratory psychotherapeutic research: the process within the process. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 4, 409–425. Jick, T.D. (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611. Kelly, G. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York. Kelly, G. (1965) The strategy of psychological research. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 18, 1–15. Kidder, L.H. and Judd, C.M. (1986) Research Methods in Social Relations, CBS College Publishing, New York. Kirk, J. and Miller, M.L. (1986) Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park.

Qualitative Methods in Personal Construct Research

67

Leitner, L. (1985) Interview methodologies for construct elicitation: searching for the core, in Anticipating Personal Construct Psychology (eds F.R. Epting and A. W. Landfield), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 292–305. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G., (2000) Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park. Lyons, A. (1999) Shaping health psychology: qualitative research evaluation and representation, in Qualitative Health Psychology: Theory and Method (ed. A. Lyons), Sage, Newbury Park. McLeod, J. (2001) Qualitative Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy, Sage, Newbury Park. Manning, K. (1997) Authenticity in constructivist inquiry, Qualitative Research, 3, 93–116. Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R. (1994) Beginning Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park. Miles, M. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook, Sage, Newbury Park. Morse, J. (1992) The power of induction. Qualitative Health Research (Editorial) 2, 3–6. Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, London. Polkinghorne, D. (1991) Two conflicting calls for methodological reform. The Counselling Psychologist, 19, 103–114. Rennie, R.L. (2003) Experiencing psychotherapy: grounded theory studies, in Humanistic Psychotherapies: Handbook of Research and Practice (eds D.J. Cain and J. Seeman), APA, Washington, DC. Richards, L. and Richards, T. (1987) Qualitative data analysis: can computers do it? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 23, 23–35. Salmon, P. (1977) Doing psychological research, in Personal Construct Psychology (ed. F. Fransella), Academic Press, London, pp. 35–43. Sandelowski, M. (1986) The problem of rigour in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 27–37. Seeman, J. (2002) Looking back, looking forward; a synthesis, in Humanistic Psychotherapies: Handbook of Research and Practice (eds D. Cains and J. Seeman), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Stiles, W.B. (1999) Evaluating qualitative research. Evidence-based Mental Health, 2, 95–101. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Tesch, R. (1990) Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. Falmer Press, New York. Tesch, R. (1991) Computer programs that assist in the analysis of qualitative data: an overview. Qualitative Health Research, 1, 309–325. Turner, B. (1987) Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: one way of organising the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory. Quality and Quantity, 15, 225–247.

68

Personal Construct Methodology

Vasco, A.B. (1994) Correlates of constructivism among Portuguese therapists. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 7, 1–16. Viney, L.L. (1987) Interpreting the Interpreters, Robert E. Krieger, Florida. Weitzman, E.A. and Miles, M.B. (2001) A Software Sourcebook: Computer Programs for Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London. White, J. and Nagy, S. (1994) Congruence: From the conception the topic of inquiry to the establishment of credibility of outcomes. International Qualitative Health Conference, June 1994. Hershey, USA. Willig, C. (2001) Introducing Qualitative Research, Open University, Buckingham.

Part II

Qualitative Approaches: Exploring Process

3

The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden In this chapter, the authors aim to provide a clear understanding of the process of laddering, the history of its development as a useful and powerful Personal Construct Theory (PCT) technique, guidance on how to apply it and ideas for dealing with problems that may arise in the application.

What Is Laddering? Laddering is the term applied to a technique whereby an interviewer progressively elicits constructs of increasing importance from an interviewee. The technique was first outlined by Hinkle (1965), based on George Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory. Understanding of certain key aspects of that theory are essential to effective use of laddering, whether for research or clinical use. Kelly (1955/1991) suggested that constructs are discriminations that we make about the world, such that some things are regarded as similar and different to other things. These discriminations are therefore bipolar, with both an understanding of the similarity as well as the difference, being essential. For example our understanding of hot only has meaning relative to cold. Constructs are considered to be related to other constructs hierarchically, so that some are broader in application, and hence importance, than others. The former are referred to as relatively superordinate, the latter as subordinate. A construct like sinful vs. pure might be superordinate to thieving vs. respecting others’ property.

Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

72

Personal Construct Methodology

The technique of laddering is seemingly simple in its description but can be complex in its application and surprisingly powerful in impact. At its most basic the interviewer begins with the interviewee’s construct and asks which pole the respondent prefers and why. When this new construct pole is elicited, its contrast pole determined and preference established, the crucial “why?” question is repeated, thus eliciting a pole of a further, more superordinate, construct pole. This continues until the respondent cannot elaborate further or prefers not to proceed. To illustrate laddering it is usually helpful to begin with a relatively subordinate construct. To do this we would focus on a fairly concrete domain – let’s try shoes. Firstly we need to elicit a construct about shoes, so we might ask our participant to compare several pairs of shoes and indicate how two of these pairs are similar and different to another pair(s). Some might “have laces” and others are “slip-ons.” These are the two poles of our initial construct. We would than ask: “which do you prefer?” The conversation might then proceed: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

I prefer slip-ons. Why is that? They take less time to put on. What’s the opposite of that? Taking more time. Why do you prefer taking less rather than more time? I can get more done. Why is it important for you to get things done. Because that helps you get on in the world. What’s the opposite of getting on in the world? Not getting on. Being a failure. Why do you want to get on in the world? It makes me feel I’m worthwhile. As opposed to. . . ? Nothingness. Feeling I don’t exist.

There are a few comments that need to be made about this example. To begin with, focusing on the interviewee, different people are likely to give very different responses, even when they prefer the same construct pole. Ladders also differ markedly in their length. Webb (2005) reported a range of 3–16 steps, with a mean of about eight. As to the method, not all laddering exponents might be totally happy with the example we’ve given. Differing styles, and even philosophical

The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems

73

positions, exist. Some of these issues will be discussed more fully later in this paper. But the general method is accepted of successively eliciting a bipolar construct, ascertaining the preferred pole, and then asking why it is preferred. As such, laddering is a form of interview that, although relatively structured, does not have to appear overly repetitive if the interviewer is skilled in careful listening and is inventive enough to vary the questions slightly while retaining their function. So, in the example there is variation in eliciting both the alternative pole of the constructs and the importance of the preference. It also may not be necessary to ask for the preference for each initial construct pole or the alternative pole label in the interests of making the interview flow. However, because of the importance of bipolarity to communication and understanding of meaning, personal construct practitioners and researchers would consider that the alternative pole should not be ignored and perhaps in the early stages of learning to ladder it is advisable to ask it as a matter of course.

Development of Laddering as a Personal Construct Method Hinkle (1965) developed laddering as a research tool for his doctoral thesis that focused on change and resistance to change. He called it a “hierarchical technique for eliciting the superordinate constructs of the preferred self hierarchy” (Hinkle, 1965, p. 32). It has been more widely used in nonresearch contexts, being particularly popular as a clinical tool (e.g., Rowe, 2002). Personal construct practitioners working in management and organizational contexts have also applied it extensively in interventions within organizations (e.g., Stewart and Stewart, 1981; Jankowicz, 2003; Bourne and Jenkins, 2005), and in the knowledge acquisition context (e.g., Corbridge et al., 1994). Other applications and developments largely without reference to PCT will be considered later in this chapter. Landfield (1971) proposed a technique termed pyramiding1 for the elicitation of constructs that are more subordinate. His approach,

1

Terms differ in distinguishing pyramiding from the traditional laddering with some referring to the latter as “laddering up” and the former “laddering down” or “backwards’ laddering” (Sørensen, Grunert, and Nielsen, 1996).

74

Personal Construct Methodology

unlike laddering, was restricted to exploring three levels of ordination. The questions focused on were how? or what? (in contrast to the why? emphasis of traditional laddering), so that, starting with a construct pole, the interviewer might ask: “How would I know if someone was an X? What would they do?” The interviewer works on each pole of each construct, eliciting both similarity and contrast. This results in one bipolar construct at the first level, four at the middle level (derived from each pole of the original construct), and finally eight relatively subordinate constructs from the four from the previous level. Some have used pyramiding in a more flexible way, comparable to the Hinkle-inspired approach, proceeding as extensively down the hierarchical paths as the interviewer and interviewee were able.

The Validity of Laddering Perhaps because the experience of laddering feels so powerful for those undertaking it, little evidence of its validity was sought until relatively recently beyond Hinkle’s (1965) original research. Hinkle had demonstrated that those constructs at higher levels of superordination, as elicited by the technique, had more implications than those functioning lower in the hierarchy. Further relatively superordinate constructs were more resistant to change from the preferred to nonpreferred pole, than those constructs lower in the hierarchy. Both these findings were consistent with Kelly’s (1955) position. Similarly Fransella (1972) with stutterers and Button (1980) with anorexics provided evidence that laddered constructs had many more implications within the construct system than did more subordinate constructs, focusing on the consequences of this for therapeutic improvement. Neimeyer, Anderson, and Stockton (2001) obtained strong support for the validity of laddering and theoretical assumptions concerning construct superordinacy. Laddering interviews were conducted from two element sets, films or family members, The more concrete, film-related, constructs led to longer ladders than did the more abstract family member constructs. Constructs higher in hierarchies had greater response latency and were rated more difficult to articulate. Intermediate constructs were rated as significantly more important than initial constructs, but the rating for the final level did not differ significantly from

The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems

75

either of the others2. Finally, more superordinate constructs were rated as concerning existential and moral themes than subordinate ones, while the reverse was true for lower levels where themes concerned specific interests and relationships. A number of writers have assumed that the top levels of ladders relate to values (Brophy, 2003, 2008; Gutman and Reynolds, 1979). Webb (2005) was able to demonstrate relationships between Schwartz’s values and higherorder constructs obtained from ladders. Her study involved laddering three constructs derived from three element sets (food, people, institutions). The top constructs of ladders were rated as at a higher order of abstraction than median and initial levels. Most of the higher order constructs could be classified in terms of Schwartz’ ten motivational value categories (e.g., achievement, benevolence, security, hedonism, etc.). However a significant number could not (22.6%, 35.5% and 9.7% for the first, second and third element set ladders respectively). While 21 (4%) of these were considered restatements of constructs at other levels, the remainder she classified as “the consequences of values”, notably fulfilling the purpose of life, meaning, being happy with oneself and enjoying life. Webb (2005) argued that these may be of lesser interest clinically than the superordinate value to which they were linked. These consequences of values appear similar to what Hinkle (2005, personal communication) has termed “Way of Life” construing, “values that are ends in themselves – actions that required no further ends in view to be worth doing.”

Wider Uses of Laddering There are two main areas outside of the mainstream personal construct and psychology literature where laddering has been used and further developed. One focuses on marketing, the second on knowledge acquisition. In some cases this work acknowledges the origins of laddering and its elaboration within a personal construct framework. Later writers, however, often appear unaware of this and depart quite substantially from constructivist philosophical assumptions and the importance of bipolarity that were integral to 2 This finding may reflect the difficulty of determining when the apex of the hierarchy has been reached. Interviewers may overshoot the top, since they may not be sure that it had been reached until the next response appears to be more subordinate. Webb has commented on a similar problem in her research.

76

Personal Construct Methodology

the original technique. Nevertheless it is worth considering how they have applied and elaborated the method as providing additional observations about the nature of the process and considerable further evidence for its utility and validity.

Marketing Laddering has been used extensively in a marketing context to explore hierarchies of construing governing people’s choices of products. Its initial introduction was made by Gutman and Reynolds (1979). Their aim was to use the technique to explore how consumer groups view products at different levels of abstraction, and to obtain responses that “are closer to the values that govern behavior” (p. 135). They apply a particular version of means-end chains whereby terminal values are tied to attributes of products via instrumental values and choice criteria (Gutman and Reynolds, 1979, p. 132). They defined terminal values as the states to which we strive (e.g., world peace, pleasure, wisdom) and instrumental values as the means by which we approach these goals (e.g., being capable, ambitious, cheerful). Gutman and Reynolds (1979) included references to Hinkle and Kelly and some personal construct terminology, but used other ways to describe their procedure and theoretical views. PCT acknowledgments decreased in later, more widely cited, papers (Gutman, 1982; Reynolds and Gutman, 1988) where, for example, their illustrative ladders use only preferred construct poles. Reynolds and Gutman (1988) elaborated their theory about the process of laddering using means-end analysis, arguing that ladders proceeded in three stages. We will refer to Sørensen et al.’s (1996) study of consumers’ views concerning fresh fish to illustrate this process. Constructs first elicited are the attributes of the product of focus, such as “low in fat content,” “has bones,” “is expensive.” Typically these responses are followed by consequences (such as “enjoy eating it,” “is time-consuming to prepare,” “a poor meal”) and finally become end states or values (e.g., “good health and long life,” “happiness and well-being,” “self-respect and self-confidence”). Other writers have found the need to make further distinctions between concrete and abstract attributes (Gutman, 1982) and functional, personal and social consequences (Holbrook, 1986; Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis, 1986). This tradition of research has experimented with different formats. A distinction has been drawn between “hard” and “soft” laddering.

The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems

77

The former is where the respondent produces ladders one by one, giving answers to standard questions at increasing levels of abstraction, commonly being conducted via questionnaires (Walker and Olsen, 1991; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002) or computer-administration (Russell et al., 2004b). “Soft” laddering involves relatively little interruption to the flow of speech of the respondent in an interview situation, with the interviewer responsive to the answers provided, as in the original Hinkle procedure. Comparison between the different formats has reported similar results (Botschen and Thelen, 1998), though Russell et al. (2004a) concluded that the relative utility of the approaches depended on the goal of the researcher. The issue remains contentious with Grunert, Beckmann, and Sørensen (2001) considering hard laddering to be preferable because of ease of administration and lower cost, whereas Russell et al. (2004a) characterize “soft” laddering as the “gold standard.” Marketing researchers need to draw conclusions about groups of people. Gutman and Reynolds presented a way of analyzing ladders that involved the aggregation of individual ladders in order to provide summaries of groups. This process involved three stages. A content analysis of all poles for all stages of the ladders was conducted, with each response classified as an attribute, consequence or value, followed by classification of the poles into summary categories. An implication matrix was then drawn up to indicate the connection between these summary categories in each ladder. Finally these chains were then mapped, supposedly providing a summation of important relationships within the group. What is not always clear to those presented with these maps is that there are ambiguities and seemingly arbitrary decisions made at every level of this process. Further it is important to note that like many summaries based on statistical data, the result may not reflect the map of any individual whose data was included, despite the use of terms such as an “aggregate . . . cognitive structure map” (Gengler, Klenosky, and Mulvey, 1995, p. 245). Subsequent marketers have proposed additional ways of aggregating and presenting graphical representations (Reynolds and Olson, 2001), many of which are marketed at considerable cost (e.g., Seidewitz, 2004). Reynolds and Gutman (1988) advocate the utility of laddering for segmenting consumers by values to provide targets for brands, product assessment and the evaluation and development of advertising strategies. The fertility of the technique can be illustrated by the range of areas of application, which is truly astonishing, including perceptions of World

78

Personal Construct Methodology

Wrestling Entertainment (Deeter-Schmelz and Sojka, 2004), consumer goals for recycling (Bagozzi and Dabholkar, 1994), food preferences (Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002) and evaluations of President Clinton (Bagozzi and Dabholkar, 2000).

Knowledge Acquisition Some of those concerned with how people learn, whether in formal classroom situations, work contexts or less formal situations, have used techniques termed “laddering.” Unfortunately they have applied the term to a variety of hierarchical diagrams, some of which are similar to those used by Personal Construct practitioners, and some very different. Little attention seems to have been paid to the differences, with proponents often apparently unaware of the origins of their approach. Rugg and George (1995) do acknowledge the origins of laddering, but take as their basic assumption that “the respondent’s knowledge is organized in a polyhierarchy” and “is categorical” (p. 340). As such they are concerned with what PCT theorists would consider to be “elements,” viz. what is made sense of by construing. They give the example of flint artifacts, one subset of which is “tool.” Tools can be broken down into three classes – core, flake and blade. Differing types of knowledge differentiation have been outlined, including concept, composition, decision and attribute ladders (www.epistemics. co.uk), supported by software in many cases for elicitation, analysis and presentation of the information. More closely related to traditional PCT approaches to laddering would appear to be Milton, Clarke, and Shadbolt’s (2006) “aspirational ladders.” The use of laddering in marketing and knowledge acquisition have proved very fertile in generating applications to interesting areas and problems. These approaches have also been inventive in focusing more closely on the processes involved and exploring adaptations of the original approach. These are welcome extensions given that the development of Hinkle’s methodologies had a very specific focus, viz. the study of values as they relate to resistance to change (Hinkle, October 18, 2005, personal communication). We would caution, however, that a clearer understanding of the underpinning theoretical framework, with its focus on a constructivist epistemology and the power of considering construing as bipolar, would be advantageous. The application of methods to an understanding of people and their behaviors entails theoretical assumptions, even if the user is

The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems

79

relatively unaware of what they are. Being explicit about the assumptions is critical to both effective research and practice. In the final section of this chapter we will consider some of the problems that users of laddering face. Some solutions to common problems will be illustrated.

Problems and Solutions to Facilitating the Process of Laddering Laddering is a skill that needs practice, rather than a formulaic routine. Problems can occur and very little information has been available as to how to deal with these expeditiously (cf. Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). More recent accounts (Reynolds, Dethloff, and Westberg, 2001; Fransella, 2003; Jankowicz, 2003; Fransella et al., 2003) provide ways of avoiding common problems. What follows is a further contribution to facilitating its use.

(a) Eliciting the second pole of a construct With regard to the elicitation of the second pole of the construct, we have used the term “opposite.” However, we would make clear to the interviewee that we were not necessarily interested in the dictionary opposite, but rather what they see as being different from the first pole, or something that is not like the first pole. For example, if a first pole is identified as “Integrity” you could say “Can you describe something/ someone who doesn’t have integrity?” The answer might be “someone who isn’t honest” or “someone who isn’t consistent” or it could be “someone you can’t trust,” etc. Or you might ask, “How would you describe a situation where there was no integrity?” The answer may be “a situation that is always changing” or “a situation that is contradictory” or “a situation that is dodgy” etc.

(b) Interviewees express no preference Having elicited the construct to ladder with, sometimes, when asked, interviewees express no preference for one or other pole. The interviewer needs then to provide a context. With regard to shoes and the construct “high heels vs. flats,” giving a context like “going out to a nightclub” or

80

Personal Construct Methodology

“walking down to the shops” results generally in a ready preference. While this might seem arbitrary to some, given the focus on superordinate construing or values, it is access to the system that is of importance, not the point of entry (Bourne and Jenkins, 2005). Another alternative that can be useful could be to ask “With what do you associate high heels?” which is a variation of the “What does that mean for you?” question; then, “With what do you associate flats?” thus facilitating a choice but also allowing the two poles to be treated as separate constructs subsequently if that seems useful. This can be especially helpful if the poles could be equally preferable depending on the context, e.g., “soft vs. hard” or “lively vs. peaceful” etc.

(c) Choosing which side of the ladder to proceed along It is generally the case that people ladder on the preferred side of the bipolar construct. Fransella (2003) has indicated that, for her, this is a “personal rule” because she often has little idea where the negative pole might end and that ending frequently will be “very depressing.” It is also the case that the preferred pole will usually be more elaborated and hence give greater insight into the meaning world of the interviewee. Interviewees will occasionally give answers for the nonpreferred side, instead of the preferred one that they were questioned about. (One of the most important lessons for interviewers is to recognize that, just because you ask a question doesn’t mean the person answers it.) But the interviewer can bring the respondent back to the preferred side to proceed further. Be careful also when people prefer a construct pole that is impossible to attain. In one badly handled ladder an Afro-American was laddered on the hair construct of curly vs. straight. She preferred “straight.” This laddered up to “being in control vs. being out of control,” a link which was an unwelcome surprise to both her and the interviewer.

(d) Problems with the “why” question Problems can also occur when the “why” question does not seem quite appropriate, or the interviewee finds it difficult to articulate the answer, but it is clear that the top of the ladder has not yet been reached. In cases where this results in a block, it has been useful to ask instead “what does that mean for you?” The following script provides examples:

The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems Q:

A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

81

You have identified the construct Happiness vs. Being fearful, with Happiness as the preferred pole. Why is it important for you to be happy? Because when I’m happy, I do things well. And why is it important to you to do things well? Because then I feel viable. And why is it important for you to feel viable. (long pause) Um. . . .er. . .well. . . .er. . . Can you tell me what “being viable” means for you? Well, it means that I’m contributing, being really there. . .um. . significant. . .ahh. . .not empty.

The “what does it mean for you” question has quickly yielded not only one, but several answers. This raises the next problem of how to proceed when there are several possible pathways provided.

(e) Ways to proceed with several alternatives In the course of laddering, the interviewee can sometimes give several spontaneous answers to the “why is that important for you?” question. There can be several contrast (opposite) poles given for the original construct, but there can also be one pole of another construct. Asking the “what does that mean for you?” question in the above example elicited one pole of several more constructs as well as providing feasible contrast poles for the original construct. In this case, the other constructs are: . . .

“Being significant” vs. . . . . . . . . . . ” (whatever the interviewee identifies) “Contributing vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . ” and “Being really there vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . ”

Moreover, each of these provides a contrast pole for the original construct “Viable.” In this situation, using the above example, there are a number of ways forward. You can explore why “being significant” is important, why “contributing” is important, or what is meant by “being really there” and why that is important. It is useful to base your initial choice on the most concrete of the constructs as this often leads back to the others anyway. In what follows “contributing” was chosen (a construct that doesn’t seem to require a lot of explanation), and the dialogue went like this: Q: A:

Why is it important for you to contribute? Because then I feel useful, you know, doing something worthwhile.

82

Personal Construct Methodology Q: A:

And why is it important to feel useful or to do something worthwhile? Well then I’m not just an empty space, I’m really there.

At this point, the choice of moving forward with “contributing” was nicely validated as it brought us back to another of the possible pathways “Being really there.” The “what does it mean for you?” question could be utilized again. Q: A: Q: A:

What does “being really there” mean for you? It means being a part of something, belonging, being valued for one’s contribution. And why is it important for you to be a part of something, to belong, to be valued? Because then I know I’m really there, contributing.

The circular response here is indicating that the top of the ladder has been reached. A contrast pole for this important construct of “being really there” can be elicited by asking the question “Could you describe someone who is not really there?” The dialogue concluded like this: Q: A:

Could you describe someone who not really there, or contributing? Well, someone who doesn’t make any difference.

At this point, the top of this ladder was reached, yielding the core construct “Being really there vs. not making any difference.” The above dialogue makes this core construct full of meaning, both for the interviewee and the interviewer, and provides a fruitful context for talking about choices and decisions. The construct is relevant to motivation, emotions, sense of identity and self-worth – all of which provide rich contexts for exploration if desired.

(f) Utilizing emotions to overcome a block Another way of proceeding when the “why” question results in a block is to ask the question “How does that make you feel?” Whereas a person can’t always immediately verbalize an interpretation of something, talking about feelings has proven useful and can lead back to the “why is that important?” question. The following script provides an example: The construct being laddered was: “Sensitive vs. Less concerned with others’ opinions, putting less weight on them” (Preferred pole, “Less concerned . . .”)

The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

83

Could you tell me why it is important to be less concerned with others’ opinions: Well, it lessens the rumination cycle. And why is it important to lessen the rumination cycle? Because I tend to get stuck. And why is it important not to get stuck? So I don’t waste time and energy. And why is it important not to waste time and energy? (pause, then) I feel that energy is limited so I need to choose wisely. And why is that important? So I don’t collapse? And that is important because . . .? Well, I don’t want to fall apart, it takes a lot of time and energy to put myself back together and it’s no fun and there is no forward momentum. (going with fun and momentum as the most concrete construct) And why is it important to have fun and momentum? (pauses) Well, life needs light and shade, momentum means development.

At this point, the interviewee was clearly exploring their own sense of what this meant and was finding it hard to articulate, so to assist and continue, the “How does this make you feel?” question was posed, utilizing emotions as a way forward. Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

Could you tell me how it makes you feel when there is no fun and momentum? (ponders briefly, then) It feels like a black room, no sound or feeling. And how does that make you feel? Nothing to relate to, absence of stimuli, death of soul. (back to the “why” question) So why is it important to have fun and momentum? So I don’t stagnate, so I move.

At this stage the top of the ladder was visible, yielding the core construct “Moving forward with fun and momentum vs. stagnating, death of soul” and once again, the construct is full of meaning. It can be seen as the basis for many potential decisions for this interviewee. The “how does that make you feel?” question provided a way forward and then back to the “why” question. The “how does that make you feel?” question can also be used from the beginning as an alternate laddering path. Focusing on the negative emotions will often yield a faster response than positive ones as people tend to think more about their negative feelings, while simply enjoying the positive ones.

84

Personal Construct Methodology

Overall, the emotion question usually works well in parallel with the “why” question, giving added perspective and meaning to the constructs along the way on both paths and to the core constructs obtained.

(g) Recognizing the top of a ladder Knowing when to stop reaching for more may depend on the context. In a clinical context, where the impact of the exploration can be carefully monitored, it may be important to push further, whereas in the research context ethical concerns would necessitate caution. The upper ends of ladders are often surprising to both the interviewee as well as the interviewer. Indeed in some cases they may be unwelcomingly disturbing and so need to be very carefully handled. Diffusing the disturbance may be achieved by asking the interviewee to describe/discuss the ways in which they imagined the ladder would turn out and then, a bit later, why they thought it turned out differently. This provides a relevant cognitive distraction or change of focus from the immediate emotional state aroused. Disturbance may also be addressed by explaining a little more about the dynamics of the laddering process (such as the ways in which it was specifically designed to allow submerged material to emerge) thereby allowing the client/interviewee to gain some brief cognitive distance from the disturbing emotions the laddering raised. After that, possibly in a subsequent session, the interviewer/therapist could explore with the client/interviewee both the laddering process and the emotions a bit further if that was desired or perceived as useful.

Conclusion The primary focus of this chapter has been to familiarize the reader with both the technique of laddering and with the depth and complexity of the process. With this in mind we have provided the theoretical context for the technique and proceeded with the kinds of examples that illustrate both initiating the process and dealing with the problems that may arise. As has been stated however, laddering is best learned by engaging in practice and developing a finely tuned feel for the intricacies of the process. As Fransella (2003) commented, “it is difficult to decide whether laddering is a skill or a tool . . . a very complex skill to learn and one of the most useful tools to have” (p. 112). The examples given in this chapter are based on the authors’ experiences of laddering and, as many advocates of this technique have said, you learn

The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems

85

new things every time you use the process. What is difficult to convey, however, is the nature of the personal interaction that occurs. As emphasized earlier, it is well to keep in mind that while the technique seems simple, it has powerful undercurrents. It is not unlike being aware that the surf that looks so easy to swim in can cloak a deep, swift rip that can pull you far out to sea. Such can be the experience of eliciting a ladder in a situation where you are not listening carefully enough to what your client/interviewee is expressing. Within moments you can be in deep water psychologically, borne along by the interviewee’s emotions and perceptions. Fransella (2003) comments that you need to be able to concentrate 100% on what the client is trying to say, the process of laddering being the nearest one gets ”to that experience of being almost a part of the other person.” (p. 113). This is difficult to describe. It can be experienced as a sort of “flowing along” with the other person, where you need to be very aware of how they are experiencing the interaction and very open to allowing their understanding to inform the process. This tuning process also develops the skills of recognizing the top of a ladder or being alert to when it may be best to stop the current session. An understanding of these processes and associated skills are essential whether using laddering as a therapeutic technique or as a method of data collection. What needs to be remembered is that, whatever the aim, the interviewee will experience a real and dynamic interaction which will inevitably lead to a level of greater personal insight for participants, interviewee and interviewer.

References Bagozzi, R.P. and Dabholkar, P.A. (1994) Consumer recycling goals and their effect on decisions to recycle: a means-end chain analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 11, 313–340. Bagozzi, R.P. and Dabholkar, P.A. (2000). Discursive psychology: Am alternative conceptual foundation to means-end chain theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 535-586. Botschen G. and Thelen, E. (1998) Hard versus soft laddering: implications for appropriate use, in New Developments and Approaches in Consumer Behaviour Research (eds G. Balderjahn, C. Mennicken and F. Vernette), SchafferPoeschel, Stuttgart, pp. 322–339. Bourne, H. and Jenkins, M. (2005) Eliciting managers’ personal values: An adaptation of the laddering interview method. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 410–428.

86

Personal Construct Methodology

Brophy, S. (2003) Clarifying corporate values: A case study, in International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology (ed. F. Fransella), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, pp. 367–378. Brophy, S. (2008) Extending the domain of PCP within the corporate and healthcare sector: A process for embedding corporate values. 9th European Personal Construct Association conference, London, July 1. Button, E. (1980) Construing and clinical outcome in anorexia nervosa. PhD thesis. University of London. Corbridge, C., Rugg, G., Major, et al. (1994) Laddering: Technique and tool use in knowledge acquisition. Knowledge Acquisition, 6, 315–341. Deeter-Schmelz, D.R. and Sojka, J.Z. (2004) Wrestling with American values: an exploratory investigation of World Wrestling Entertainment as a productbased subculture. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 4, 132–143. Fransella, F. (1972) Personal Change and Reconstruction, Academic Press, London. Fransella F. (2003) Some skills and tools for personal construct practitioners, in International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology (ed. F. Fransella), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, pp. 105–121. Fransella F., Bell, R.C., and Bannister D. (2003) A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Gengler, C.E., Klenosky, D.B., and Mulvey, M.S. (1995) Improving the graphic representation of means-end results. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 245–256. Grunert, K.G., Beckmann, S., and Sørensen, E. (eds) (2001). Means-end Chains and Laddering: An Inventory of Problems and an Agenda for Research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Gutman, J. (1982) A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46, 60–72. Gutman, J. and Reynolds, T.J. (1979) An investigation of the levels of cognitive abstraction used by consumers in product differentiation, in Attitude Research under the Sun (ed. J. Eighmey), McGraw-Hill, Chicago, pp. 128–150. Hinkle, D.N. (1965) The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications. PhD thesis. Ohio State University. Holbrook, M.B. (1986) Aims, concepts, and methods for the representation of individual differences in esthetic responses to design features. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 337–347. Jankowicz, D. (2003) The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Landfield A. (1971) Personal Construct Systems in Psychotherapy, Rand McNally, Chicago.

The Use of Laddering: Techniques, Applications and Problems

87

Milton, N., Clarke, D., and Shadbolt, N. (2006) Knowledge engineering and psychology: Towards a close relationship. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 64, 1214–1229. Neimeyer, R.A., Anderson, A., and Stockton, L. (2001) Snakes versus ladders: A validation of laddering technique as a measure of hierarchical structure. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 237–252. Park C.W., Jaworski B.J., and MacInnis, D. J. (1986) Strategic brand concept/image management. Journal of Marketing, 50, 135–145. Reynolds T.J. and Gutman J. (1988) Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 11–31. Reynolds, T.J., Dethloff, C., and Westberg, S.J. (2001) Advancements in laddering, in Understanding Consumer Decision Making: A Means-end Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy (eds T.J. Reynolds and J.C. Olson), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J, pp. 91–118. Reynolds, T.J. and Olson, J.C. (eds) (2001) Understanding Consumer Decision Making: A Means-end Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J. Rowe, D. (2002) Beyond Fear, HarperCollins, London. Rugg, G. and McGeorge, P. (1995) Laddering. Expert Systems, 12, 339–346. Russell, C.G., Busson, A., Flight, I., et al. (2004a) A comparison of three laddering techniques applied to an example of a complex food choice. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 569–583. Russell, C.G., Flight, I., Leppard, P., et al. (2004b) A comparison of paperand-pencil and computerized methods of hard laddering. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 279–291. Seidewitz (2004) A brief primer on Laddering. www.seidewitzgroup.com/wpcontent/uploads/laddering-primer.pdf Sørensen, E., Grunert, K.G., and Nielsen, N.A. (1996) The impact of product experience, product involvement and verbal processing style on consumers’ cognitive structures with regard to fresh fish. MAPP working paper No. 42, Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business. Stewart, V. and Stewart, A. (1981) Business Applications of Repertory Grid, McGrawHill, London. Walker B.A. and Olsen J. (1991) Means-end chains: connecting products with self. Journal of Business Research, 22, 111–118. Webb, M. (2005) climbing ladders to values with personal construct psychology. Honours thesis. Psychology Department, University of Wollongong, Australia. www.epistemics.co.uk (2009) Epistemics: Knowledge is our business, retrieved May 12, 2009. Zanoli, R. and Naspetti, S. (2002) Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food. British Food Journal, 104, 643–653.

4

The ABC Model Revisited Finn Tschudi and David Winter This chapter considers and elaborates a personal construct model, first described by Tschudi (1977), that allows exploration of a problem faced by an individual by considering the disadvantages and advantages of the problem and of the person’s desired alternative to the problem. The personal construct psychology view of choice, including choice of symptoms, will first be described. Other personal construct methods of exploring dilemmas and conflicts will then be considered, before describing the ABC model. The clinical applications of this model will be outlined, and illustrated by a case example. Recent elaborations of the model in the exploration of decisions and in considering problems at a systemic level will also be discussed.

Choice It is a central tenet of personal construct psychology (Kelly, 1955/1991) that people’s actions are based, at some level, on the choices that they make. This centrality of choice to Kelly’s theory derives from the bipolarity of personal constructs, in that each of our constructs presents us with the alternatives of construing an element of our life (for example, an event, another person, or oneself) in terms of one or the other of the construct’s poles, or perhaps neither. The choice which the individual makes is, in Kelly’s view, an elaborative one, in that the alternative chosen is the one that offers the best prospect for anticipating events. While this may provide a vision of the individual smoothly negotiating his or her way through life, by simply choosing at each crossroad the turning leading towards greater anticipation, the reality is that choices are rarely this Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

90

Personal Construct Methodology

straightforward. This is evident in Kelly’s (1995/1991) original statement of his “Choice Corollary,” where he makes it clear that increasing anticipation of events may involve either extension or greater definition of the construct system, or in other words adventure or security. It may well be that opting to construe an event in terms of one pole of a construct, and acting accordingly, offers a pathway towards adventure while opting for the other pole appears to lead towards security. Which way, then, does the individual turn? In our daily lives, each of us is likely frequently to be confronted by choices in which each of the alternative options carries both positive and negative implications. For example, on being invited to co-author this chapter, while one of us (DW) viewed acceptance of this invitation as offering the appealing prospects of contributing to an exciting new publication, and of renewing a rewarding collaboration with an old friend (FT), the down side of acceptance of the offer was that the deadline for the chapter coincided with those for other writing engagements and work commitments.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Symptom Although it might appear self-evident that one “choice” that is straightforward is whether to retain or relinquish a particular symptom, the persistence of our clients’ symptoms, or of their seemingly self-destructive behavior, provides a clear indication that this is not the case. This issue has been addressed by writers from a range of theoretical perspectives. For example, Freud (1959) proposed that symptoms may provide clients with “secondary gains,” Greenwald (1973) illustrated the “payoffs” of symptoms, some systemic therapists indicated the “function of the symptom” in protecting the system from some other problem, and Mowrer (1950) described the “neurotic paradox” of behavior which is “at one and the same time self-perpetuating and self-defeating.” Kelly (1969, pp. 84–85) dismissed the notion of the neurotic paradox, taking the view that “Within the client’s own limited construction system he may be faced with a dilemma but not with a paradox.” For example, as Fransella (1970) demonstrated, for all its unpleasantness, the symptom may still essentially be the client’s “way of life” in that it appears to present his or her best current option for providing meaning and anticipating events. A more recent constructivist exposition of the advantages and disadvantages of symptoms, and of a therapeutic approach to these, is provided by Ecker and Hulley’s (1996) depth-oriented brief therapy, now renamed coherence therapy (Ecker and Hulley, 2008). These workers consider that

The ABC Model Revisited

91

the client has both an “anti-symptom position” at a conscious level and a “pro-symptom position,” “an unconscious model of reality in which the symptom seems necessary to have” (p. 16).

Exploring Dilemmas and Conflicts Several approaches have been developed to explore from a personal construct perspective dilemmas and conflicts such as those described above, involving the symptom or other aspects of construing. Thus, “implicative dilemmas” may be revealed by Hinkle’s (1965) implications grid, in which the individual is asked, for each of their constructs, if they were to switch their self-construction from one pole to the other, which other constructs would they move on. A variation on this method, the bipolar implications grid (Fransella, 1972), entails asking, for each of a person’s construct poles, which other construct poles would characterize a person so described. For example, the use of this technique allowed Winter (1988a) to demonstrate the undesirable implications of sexual responsiveness which seemed to underlie a client’s symptom of inability to ejaculate. Hinkle’s (1965) resistance to change grid may allow further investigation of the client’s obstacles to movement. Other personal construct methods of conflict identification employ repertory grid technique, defining conflict in terms of logical inconsistency (Bassler, Krauthauser, and Hoffman, 1992; Bell, 2004; Slade and Sheehan, 1979) or relationships between constructs in which movement towards the preferred pole on one implies movement away from the preferred pole on the other (Feixas and Sa
ul, 2005). By identifying inconsistencies and dilemmas in an individual’s construing, each of the above methods may provide an understanding of the impasses with which the individual may be faced, and hence his or her resistance to change. A more direct way of doing so, which obviates the necessity for engaging in the time-consuming process of repertory grid administration and analysis, is to apply the ABC model.

ABC Model Tschudi (1977) first described this model in the chapter “Loaded and honest questions,” where A, B, and C denote three interrelated constructs. A – conveniently referred to as the problem construct – is the starting point,

92

Personal Construct Methodology

and both poles – positions – on this construct are easily accessible. We might say that they are on a manifest level, where one position, a1, is problematic, and the other, a2, represents a desired position, DP. In clinical applications the problematic position, PP, has generally been referred to as the symptom but the more general term PP may be more convenient for applications in other fields. It is usually straightforward to elicit PP, for instance asking “what, specifically, is bothering you?” For clinical applications the approach is especially relevant for problems of long standing where there is a history of unsuccessful attempts at solution. Some obvious examples of an A construct are a1 depression, can’t have orgasm, feelings of social incompetence, and drug dependence, where a2 would be not depressed, have orgasm, social competence, and drug free. The poles should, of course, be expressed in the client’s own language and sometimes it may be necessary to help the client to specify the problem further by asking for more subordinate constructs, The B construct represents elaboration of A, where b1 represents negative consequences of a1 and b2 positive consequences of a2. Eliciting B is usually fairly straightforward, and indeed it is sometimes so obvious that it can be ignored. Quite often there is an underlying C construct which defines the dilemma and prevents movement from a1 to a2. The undesired a1 may also have desirable consequences, c2, and conversely a2 has undesired consequences, c1. In Hinkle’s terms, this structure is an implicative dilemma, and being made aware of C may point to therapeutic steps to bring the person out of the dilemma. Such an approach is not only useful in therapeutic settings but also more generally. The ABC model is summarized in Figure 4.1. Using Ecker and Hulley’s (1996, p. 16) terminology, the C construct represents “the pro-symptom position.” This is said to be a “compelling personal meaning,” containing “the truest emotional significance of the symptom,” which sometimes may be “vitally necessary, so it may not simply stop or be disallowed.” In Kellian terms, C may thus exemplify a core

A problem construct

a1 PP problem position

a2 DP desired position

B elaboration of A

b1 disadvantage of PP

b2 advantage of DP

C defines dilemma

c2 advantage of PP

c1 disadvantage of DP

Figure 4.1 The ABC model.

The ABC Model Revisited

93

construct. Unlike Ecker and Hulley, we prefer not to think of c2 as “unconscious” but rather regard it as generally latent (Tschudi, 2009), and invoke the Kellian concept “level of cognitive awareness.” In some cases c2 may be at a high level of awareness. People who want to stop smoking are generally painfully aware of the advantages of smoking, and similarly for many other cases of drug dependence. More commonly, however, c2 is at a low level of awareness, and a challenge for the therapist is to ask what Dawes (1985, p. 190) describes as “the seemingly absurd question ‘what are the advantages of remaining as you are, and then the disadvantages of changing?’” When advantages are not at all obvious, as for instance with severe depression, considerable therapeutic tact and skill are necessary to get at possible underlying advantages. Being depressed may, for instance, be a person’s only way of getting attention, or in other cases it may be felt as necessary to preserve social sensitivity by being “sadder but wiser.” If the therapist feels that going straight at “advantages of PP,” and/or “disadvantages of DP” does not represent a viable challenge for the client there are several alternative ways of getting at the C construct. An obvious approach is to “soften” the question, for example: This may sound a strange question but I wonder if there may be any disadvantages of DP in addition to the advantages, and indeed if there may be any advantages of PP as well as the obvious disadvantages.

The therapist may simply ask: What prevents you from getting to a2?

As a less direct approach, “but” is an elegant way of getting at c1, for example: You tell me you want DP, might there still be a “but” lurking here?

An “‘as if’ frame” (as in Kelly’s (1995/1991) “invitational mood”) might also be useful: Suppose you were at DP. How would the world then look like? What else would then be different? Are there any disadvantages here?

If this approach is taken, the therapist might use hypnotic techniques to help the client as fully as possible enter the DP world.

94

Personal Construct Methodology

It may also be possible to “help” the client with suggestions, provided that it is clear that the client is perfectly free to reject them. For example, if the client does not appear to comprehend that there may be any advantages of depression, the therapist might say: For example, when you are depressed could it be that there are fewer demands on you?

Any such suggestion should represent an educated guess, for example from the client’s nonverbal behavior, and not primarily be guided by the therapist’s preconceived theory. There are cases where there do not seem to be any advantages of the problem, what Tschudi (1977) referred to as “behavioral deficiencies.” As discussed by Tschudi and Sandsberg (1984), these might be cases for a more symptom-focused approach such as traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy. Essentially, the therapist would concentrate on getting to DP, using anything relevant in the book. If it fails the attempted therapy (which may well be carried out by a therapist from another school than the Kellian therapist) may be seen as part of a diagnostic venture, providing a vantage point for what prevented movement to DP. Finally there may be cases where any possible disadvantage of DP may be a chimera, as in our final example from Sierra Leone. Frances (2004) has noted that sometimes there may be an unfortunate tendency to “force” constructs into a mould with a positive and a negative pole. Both poles may in general have both positive and negative implications, and she uses “open – closed” as a personal example (see Figure 4.2). When there is no general preference for either pole the two diagonals correspond to B and C constructs, and both have by definition a positive and negative pole. There is, however, no basis for distinguishing between B and C as in the ABC model. Since the ABC model starts with the premise that the person is at a non-preferred pole it has a different focus, and it is thus not clear if Frances’ (2004) approach should be seen as “elaborating Tschudi’s model a little” (p. 106). We do, however, find it important to draw attention to Frances’ approach since in some cases this may invite a general question such as “when there are both advantages and disadvantage to both positions, are you sure you really want to change?” This may help the client to contextualize applicability of the poles, and this may be especially useful for generally stated constructs, such as “sociable”/ “not sociable.”

The ABC Model Revisited

95

Preferred aspects

Honest, inclusive

|

Private, happy with self

| OPEN ---------------------------------- -|---------------------------------------- CLOSED

Indiscreet, gullible

|

Isolating, exclusive

Least preferred aspects

Figure 4.2 An example of both poles of a construct having positive and negative implications. Source: adapted from M. Frances (2004) The preference axis – ambiguity and complexity in personal construing, Personal Construct Theory and Practice, 1, 104–107, Figure 1, Ó 2004. Reproduced by permission of Prof. Dr Joern Scheer.

In the clinical setting, having used the ABC model to identify the positive and negative implications of the client’s problem position, various therapeutic options may be identified. These may include the following: 1. Controlled elaboration of the dilemma: Use of the ABC model allows the therapist to reframe the client’s problem in terms of a dilemma, which may be further elaborated by various means, including laddering, grid methods, or the use of “empty chair technique” in which the chairs represent the contrasting poles of the dilemma (Feixas and Sa
ul, 2005). 2. Find a way to combine a2 and c2: The client may, for example, be asked to role play, or write a characterization of, someone who can combine these characteristics, or to think of someone he or she knows who is able to do so. As described by Feixas and Sa
ul (2005), this might include the therapist designing, and asking the client to play, a fixed role of the resolved dilemma. Such approaches may facilitate the elaboration of ways in which the client may integrate options which previously may have been seen as incompatible. 3. Take a step from anywhere in the network that seems likely to lead to change: This may be a small step towards a2, during which the therapist helps the client to maintain their position at c2 (e.g., encouraging an

96

Personal Construct Methodology

agoraphobic client to make longer and longer journeys from the house, while not, as feared, losing her capacity to care for her husband). Alternatively, it may be a step towards c2, as in a case described by Tschudi (1977) of a client for whom depression (a1) allowed her to avoid sexual intercourse (c2) with her husband, where she could have been encouraged by the therapist either directly to say “no” to intercourse when she did not want this or deliberately to play being depressed at such times. 4. Reframe constructs involved in the dilemma: This may be illustrated by a case described by Greenwald (1973) in which a professor who used “indecent exposure” (a1) as a way of expressing contempt for the establishment (c2) was encouraged to view his behavior as doing no more than validating establishment views of radicals as being perverts. Such an approach may lead to what Ecker and Hulley (1996) term an “experiential shift.” 5. Acceptance of the “problem”: While the therapeutic focus is generally likely to be on reconstruction of c2, the positive implications of the problem, in some cases therapy may lead to a “reverse resolution” (Ecker and Hulley, 1996) in which the client effectively decides that a1 is no longer a problem. For example, the client may come to appreciate that other people regard a1 as a problem but that he or she does not. Whatever the specific therapeutic approach adopted, the aim will essentially be to help the client to replace “loaded” by “honest” questions. We shall now consider a case which illustrates how the ABC model may be used to guide the therapeutic procedures adopted with a client.

Case Example Over the years, Tom had been through the therapeutic mill, having been in both individual and group analytic psychotherapy and, most recently, a social skills group. This group had been included in a study of social skills training, which indicated that the low level of improvement of the clients was quite comprehensible in that their repertory grids showed that for 80% of them, social competence carried some negative implications (Winter, 1988b). Their constructions suggested that they construed the “social skills” in which they were being trained as associated with selfishness, contempt, and deceit. Tom was the client who had shown the most negative

The ABC Model Revisited a1 reasonable (unassertive)

a2 stands up for himself and asserts his opinion

b1 mixed up inside and withdrawn

b2 relieves tension

c2 1. perceived as a good bloke 2. would not risk losing an argument 3. would not become personally attacking or physically violent

c1 1. perceived as a pain in the neck 2. might lose an argument 3. might become attacking or violent

97

Figure 4.3 Tom’s ABC. Source: D. Winter (1988) Construction in social skills training, in Experimenting with Personal Construct Psychology (eds F. Fransella and L. Thomas), Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 342–356. Ó 1988, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Books UK.

outcome in the social skills groups, during which he displayed considerable deterioration on symptom measures and, on a repertory grid, an increase in the perceived distance between himself and his ideal self and an increasing tendency to construe assertive extraverts as “demanding and aggressive.” This deterioration continued in the six months following the group. In his view, “the group didn’t help at all. I’m not lacking in social skills. The problem is the feelings behind the social skills.” We (DW and Tom) decided to commence personal construct psychotherapy, and to apply the ABC model to explore “the feelings” (or at least the constructions) “behind the social skills.” The ABC (see Figure 4.3) focused upon his major complaint of inability to be assertive. Although “stands up for himself and asserts his opinions” was presented by him as his desired state and was therefore regarded as the positive pole (a2) of the A construct, the situation was not so simple in that, on being asked for the contrast pole of this construct (a1), he said that this was to be “reasonable.” As indicated in Figure 4.1, he was only able to indicate one positive implication of being assertive, namely that it “relieves tension” (which thus became the b2 pole of the B construct), as opposed to being “mixed up inside and withdrawn” (b1). However, he listed three negative implications of standing up for himself and asserting his opinions (i.e., c1 poles of C constructs), which he saw as likely to lead to being “perceived as a pain in the neck,” risking “losing an argument,” and possibly becoming “personally attacking or physically violent.” After delineating the negative implications of assertiveness, Tom spontaneously observed that they were “invalid” since he was always unassertive and reasonable and yet was not seen as “a good bloke.” To capitalize on this apparent insight, and with a view to facilitating redefinition of the C constructs, DW explored with Tom why being reasonable was not bringing

98

Personal Construct Methodology

him the rewards that he had anticipated. The following interaction ensued (Winter, 1987, p. 114): DAVID (D): TOM (T): D: T:

D: T:

Could it be that in some way you’re being too reasonable? Yes. What is it about being very reasonable that people might dislike? Could be boring perhaps. Frustration I suppose. I’m thinking of an answer. I don’t know really. Irritating probably . . . So people prefer me to disagree because it makes life more interesting. It gives them an opportunity to be something, to assert their point of view. Perhaps I imagine people are too like myself, don’t like arguing. Maybe, also if you’re reasonable all the time, in some way the other person is forced into being unreasonable by contrast. This has happened.

Tom also admitted that, although he saw losing an argument as likely to lead to “inner anger” and depression, his current strategy of avoiding assertion and consequent arguments hardly seemed to be relieving his depression. In addition, he said that there was no evidence that he could become attacking or violent. As a further therapeutic strategy, we used “time-binding” (Kelly, 1955/ 1991), attempting to identify the historical roots of the constructions revealed in his ABC as a precursor to limiting them to the time and events from which they were derived. This is similar to one of the therapeutic steps recommended by Greenwald (1973), in which one finds the context for the “primary decision” since while the decision might be found to have been highly functional at that time, this may not be the case later in life. In response to this approach, Tom recalled incidents from his childhood involving his mother, a depressive, socially phobic woman who rarely spoke, but who became physically violent on the rare occasions when she did assert her opinions. He accepted that several of his constructions concerning assertiveness once served a purpose in helping him to anticipate his mother’s unpredictable behavior, but were now anachronisms. Subsequently, he began to make larger and larger steps towards assertiveness by experimenting with alternative constructions and behavior, aided by the use of a fixed-role sketch (Winter, 1987). Post-treatment assessment showed a marked reduction in the severity of his symptoms, and of the negative implications for him of extraversion and assertiveness, as well as more favorable self-construing.

The ABC Model Revisited

99

Further Directions Exploring decisions The ABC model can be applied clinically, or indeed in other settings (Murray-Prior and Wright, 2001), to explore decisions rather than a more circumscribed focus upon the implications of a client’s symptom. Such work may be seen as facilitating the operation of Kelly’s (1995/1991) “Circumspection – Preemption – Control Cycle” by, for example, helping the respondent to circumspect concerning the issues involved in the decision. An example is provided by the case of Paul, a young man who had been referred for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. When he was a schoolboy, Paul had killed his father. However, he said that he still did not know the reasons for the “big event,” as he referred to what he had done, and said that he had “encapsulated it and put it on a shelf.” Since he clearly felt very threatened by the prospect of taking the big event off the shelf, Paul and DW explored this choice by applying the ABC model. The A construct was “leave the event on the shelf” versus “take it off the shelf.” As indicated in Figure 4.4, positive implications (b2) of taking the event off the shelf were that this would be likely to improve his memory, a1

leave the big event on the shelf

a2

take it off the shelf

b2

b1 has memory lapses faulty reasoning poor relationships with other people

improve memory programming patch thinks about relationships at different levels more proactive

directionless (tending to procrastinate due to big block of bad goo sitting in my brain) c2

c1 don’t worry about it move forward

wouldn’t think of killing myself very often

get depressed about it might decide I’ve screwed up terribly badly and that my life’s down the tubes (dead end) might kill myself because I can’t deal with it

Figure 4.4 Paul’s ABC. Source: Adapted from D. Winter and C. Goudl (2001) Construing the unthinkable, in Challenging the Boundaries: PCP Perspectives for the New Millennium (eds J.M. Fisher and N. Cornelius), ECPA Publications, Lostock Hall. Reproduced by permission of J.M. Fisher, EPCA Publications.

100

Personal Construct Methodology

and, using a metaphor from his hobby of computing, that it would allow him to develop a “programming patch” rather than having “faulty reasoning.” As well as being likely to improve his interpersonal relationships, taking the event off the shelf would, in his view, lead him to be “more proactive,” in contrast to his current “directionless” (b1) state, which he saw as being due to a “big block of bad goo sitting in my brain.” Negative implications (c1) of taking the event off the shelf were that it might lead him to become depressed, and that he might decide that his life had reached a dead end, perhaps literally because he might kill himself. After considering these implications, Paul said that he knew that he had to risk looking at the big event. In view of the possible risk of suicide, DW and Paul explored the sources of support that might be available to him during this process, and he identified one friend to whom he felt that he could turn for help. Subsequent sessions involved small steps towards taking the “big event” off the shelf, using repertory grid technique and any material that might aid his recollection of the event, including newspaper reports and culminating in the file of his court case. As described elsewhere (Winter, 2006), Paul began to remember some of the circumstances of the event, his construing of which was shown by repertory grid technique to have become much more highly elaborated. Coupled with this, he made major changes in both his personal and professional life.

Systemic ABCs The way of thinking in the ABC model may also be useful in areas quite different from therapy. So far we have construed the “symptom position” on the problem construct A as a position which a person, P, experiences as painful and thus wants to move away from (towards a “desired position”). We have implicitly taken it for granted that it is not necessary to consider the wider network of persons who are affected by P’s actions. When, however, the wider network is considered there are many situations where P can be described as being on a “problem position” but does not experience any wish to change. Yet, there may be overriding social considerations which imply that life would be substantially better for one or more persons if P could move away from the PP, the “problem position,” toward a “desired position,” DP. This will now be illustrated by two quite different examples.

The ABC Model Revisited

101

1. Restorative justice and dehumanization In severe conflicts there is often a pattern where one party holds an extremely negative view of the other, and this may imply a wish to inflict harm on the other. Conferencing in restorative justice (Tschudi, 2009) provides an excellent arena for illustrating how this can be dealt with in a peaceful way such that positive cooperation can come to replace the negative emotions. As an example we consider a conference described by Neimeyer and Tschudi (2003). The background was that Jill, a 24-year-old unmarried woman with a six-year-old child, had been driving while drunk and accidentally fatally hit a 16-year-old girl, Pat. This filled Jack, Pat’s father, with a consuming depression and anger. His prime motivation for joining a conference was to inflict harm on Jill, who was then in prison. Jill, however, wanted to participate to tell how sorry she was. The facilitator, John McDonald, talked with all participants (also friends, family and prison officials) before the conference. In his notes he wrote that Jack’s opinion about Jill and her family was that: they were not intelligent people. In fact they were the sort of people who went around making other people’s lives a mess. Jill spent her life at the pub with her useless family, she was ugly and overweight and spent time in a psychiatric institution. (McDonald, 2000, personal communication, p. 4)

In Kellian terms he made no attempt to “construe the construction processes” of Jill. In terms of how Kelly’s (1955/1991) Sociality Corollary may be phrased (Tschudi and Rommetveit, 1982), he did not want to “join in a viable social enterprise” with her. Put otherwise (Tschudi and Reichelt, 2004), in Buber’s terminology, he wanted the relation to be I–it and had no wish to move towards I–Thou. Schematically, Jack’s position may be illustrated in ABC form (see Figure 4.5), where it should be clear that we impose a normative interpretation

A

B

C

a1 I–it relation

a2 I–Thou relation

b1 inflict harm on Jill anger, depression

b2 no harm no anger or depression

c2 fill a void

c1 void, anxiety

Figure 4.5 Jack’s suggested ABC.

102

Personal Construct Methodology

of the A positions, implying that for Jack it will in the long run be more healthy to move in the “social” direction. We also assume that the advantage (c2) for Jack of his I-it relationship with Jill, and the all-consuming emotions associated with this, was that it provided him with a “way of life” (Fransella, 1970) that allowed him to fill a “void” and thus avoid anxiety. As John McDonald told all the participants, the aim of the conference was: to talk about what happened, get to hear how we’ve been affected. We look at what might happen (if anything) to make things easier for each other and whether anything might be learned from the tragedy. (McDonald, 2000, personal communication, p. 3)

A remarkable outcome of the conference was an agreement that Jack and Jill should work on a joint program to reduce drunk driving, addressing various schools, thus exemplifying “a viable social enterprise.” Jack was thus moving towards an I–Thou position. This raises the question of what made this possible. On a quite general level what we might describe as the “ecology” of the conference is important. People sit in a circle, and there is thus no trace of any hierarchical structure. Furthermore, there are no tables, only chairs, and notetaking is discouraged. This maximizes paying attention to all details of the other participants. While there is a general script for a conference, emotional outbursts as well as interruptions are certainly permitted. When strong negative emotions towards the other reign it is as if an empathic wall (Nathanson 1986, 1992) stops one from discovering the basic humanity of the other. As Martin Buber (1961, p. 27) once put it, “Each of us is encased in armor whose task is to ward off signs.” There is a large literature about conditions for dehumanization, for instance how special programs may be devised for soldiers to make it easier for them to kill what are just the “enemies.” Much less is known about the reverse process, how to break through the armor. From this point of view conferencing may be seen as a “laboratory” specially fitted for bringing about and registering such breakthroughs. When exploration of vital issues with free display of response is encouraged conditions are optimal for display of a common humanity. Probably a “breakthrough“ should resonate with deeply felt personal experience. At some occasions there may be events which call forth a joint human response, what we have called “collective vulnerability,” as in the following incident from the conference which we have described:

The ABC Model Revisited

103

the critical turning point of the conference came when Jack passed around a graphic photograph of the scene of the accident that had been taken by the police, providing a vivid portrayal of the disaster that all participants had in common. As the photo slowly made its way around the room, a reverential silence fell over the group, punctuated only by the occasional sob of a participant. This, in the words of the facilitator, was the point of the emergence of “collective vulnerability,” experienced as a shared physical deflation. Joined in the poignant recognition of the frailty and brevity of life, a new sense of coherence within the community of conference participants was cemented. The sense of connection seemed to reach out and embrace Pat herself. With shared sadness but conviction, the group then turned toward forging an agreement. (Neimeyer and Tschudi, 2003, p. 180)

After the conference Jack admitted that part of him sought to reconnect with his daughter through Jill. Before this, however, several things had happened which paved the way for the turning point. For instance it turned out that Jill was not the only one responsible for the accident. Several of her family who were present had seen that she was drunk when driving and could firmly have stopped her from driving. It is here of interest that in a related form of conferencing from Hawaii, ho’o pono pono, participants are often asked both about sins of omission – “What could you have done to prevent the happening?” – and commission – “What have you done that have contributed to the happening?” A variety of such examples appeared during the conference. Furthermore, Jill’s uncle and Jack had extensive conversation about the nature of causality, and this served to underscore a wide distribution of responsibility. In terms of the ABC model this may be taken to illustrate that as steps towards the desired position occur there is a concomitant reconstruction of C. The void in the wake of Pat’s death was no longer filled with hatred and despair (c1) but Jill’s humanity was discovered – they were “in the same boat.” While much remains before one can say that Jack has regained a totally meaningful life the goals stated by John McDonald above, “to make things easier for each other” and seeing “whether anything might be learned from the tragedy,” were reached. 2. Institutional care and respecting dignity From a normative point of view we take for granted that respect for, and fostering of, human dignity is a superordinate desired position, DP (Tschudi, 2009). From this point of view lack of respect for human dignity will always be a “problem position,” PP. In

104

Personal Construct Methodology

many cases there may, however, be administrative, or cultural/ideological values which buttress a more or less pronounced violation of dignity. In such cases an administrator may actually prefer PP, while we shall take the normative point of view, which we take for granted will by and large coincide with the interests of the “victims” of the official policy. The crux of implicative dilemmas in such cases is that the administrator will see advantages of PP, e.g., providing order (c2), and conversely disadvantages of DP, for instance extra costs, or just a disorderly, perhaps chaotic environment. Braithwaite et al. (2007) have provided a large set of examples from the aged care setting which may be taken to illustrate such dilemmas. They list a set of superordinate values as “social independence, freedom of choice, homelike environment, variety of experience, privacy and dignity,” where we regard “dignity” as a useful superordinate construct pole. As a final example, one of us, DW, had a moving experience when acting as part of a delegation to the only psychiatric hospital in Sierra Leone. At this hospital, which had been looted by the rebels during the civil war that had ravaged the country, there was no electricity, little equipment, scarcely any qualified staff, and on the ward which DW “adopted” many of the residents were chained to the beds or walls. What can one do in such a situation, where extremely limited resources might seem to be the reason for an inertia in which there appears to be no alternative to an environment which is not conducive to human dignity? In the present terminology DW went right for DP, the “desired position,” and asked the residents “what do you want?” Would it be possible to “bypass” whatever had “prevented movement” to DP, and, indeed, to show that this (in ABC terms, c1, involving chaos and overstretching of resources) was merely a chimera? It turned out that a general wish of the residents was to have music. A cassette player was bought, some of the nurses provided cassettes, and the immediate consequence of the music was that the residents started to dance! This applied also to the ones tied to the beds and walls, most of whom were then promptly unchained and danced, holding their chains, with the staff. A simple program of regular music groups was then put into place on this ward, and corresponding programs, for example of board games involving staff and patients, were introduced by DW’s colleagues on other wards. It is hoped that one of the functions that these programs will serve will be to make staff more aware of the humanity of the residents, and to be a powerful means of

The ABC Model Revisited a1 b1

c2

chained causes oedema of feet restricted freedom of movement (urinate where they sit) personal hygiene deteriorates restrained from moving around c1 won’t harm each other don’t cause trouble

a2 b2

105

unchained no oedema can use toilet personal hygiene preserved access to drugs may harm each other cause trouble

Figure 4.6 ABC of a staff member of Sierra Leone Psychiatric Hospital.

invalidating any derogatory constructions concerning people with mental health problems. On a more recent visit to the hospital, DW used the ABC model with the senior staff member on each ward to explore, and facilitate discussion of, their views concerning chaining of the residents. For example, as indicated in Figure 4.6, this method enabled one staff member to identify restriction of freedom and various physical problems as disadvantages of chaining, whereas its perceived advantages were denying residents access to (prohibited) drugs and avoiding harm and trouble. In contrast, worryingly, another staff member was unable to think of a single negative implication of chaining! Instead of losing hope in unpromising situations such as these, the attempts to facilitate some viable movement, taking into account the constructions of all the stakeholders in the situation and the positive and negative implications of change for them, including economic constraints, remind us of Mary Kaldor’s (2006) concept of building “islands of civility” in wartorn societies. This might be tied to Braithwaite et al.’s (2007), and Parker’s (2002) “triple loop learning.” The first loop would be to make programs such as that described in the last example self-sustaining, the second loop would be that by way of word of mouth a successful program will be adopted at similar locations, and the third loop would be to write about it in such a way that it inspires healthy development in other areas. Although we may appear to have strayed some distance from the ABC model, we hope that this chapter, by demonstrating the importance of taking seriously the obstacles to and facilitators of change of all the participants in seemingly hopeless situations, will go some way towards the third loop!

106

Personal Construct Methodology

Conclusion Over 30 years since it was first devised, the ABC model remains a valuable, noncomputerized means of assessing aspects of construing relating to problems and obstacles to their resolution. Its utility has been demonstrated to extend beyond the exploration of clients’ symptoms and the selection of therapeutic approaches to a range of other possible applications. These include examination of the problems not only of individuals but of social systems.

References Bassler, M., Krauthauser, H., and Hoffman, S.O. (1992) A new approach to the identification of cognitive conflicts in the repertory grid: an illustrative case study. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 5, 95–111. Bell, R.C. (2004) A new approach to measuring conflict or inconsistency in grids. Personal Construct Theory and Practice, 1, 53–59. Braithwaite, J., Makkai, T., and Braithwaite, V. (2007) Regulating Aged Care. Ritualism and the New Pyramid, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Buber, M. (1961) Between Man and Man, Fontana, London (originally published 1947). Dawes, A. (1985) Construing drug dependence, in Personal Construct Theory and Mental Health (ed E. Button), Croom Helm, London, pp. 182–194. Ecker, B. and Hulley, L. (1996) Depth-Oriented Brief Therapy, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Ecker, B. and Hulley, L. (2008) Coherence therapy: swift change at the roots of symptom production, in Studies in Meaning 3: Constructivist Psychotherapy in the Real World (eds J.D. Raskin and S. K. Bridges), Pace University Press, New York, pp. 57–84. Feixas, G. and Sa
ul, L.A. (2005) Resolution of dilemmas by personal construct psychotherapy. Personal Construct Psychotherapy, Advances in Theory, Practice and Research (eds D. A. Winter and L. L. Viney), Whurr, London, pp. 136–147. Frances, M. (2004) The preference axis – ambiguity and complexity in personal construing. Personal Construct Theory and Practice, 1, 104–107. Fransella, F. (1970) Stuttering: not a symptom but a way of life. British Journal of Communication Disorders, 5, 22–9. Fransella, F. (1972) Personal Change and Reconstruction, Academic Press, London.

The ABC Model Revisited

107

Freud, S. (1959) Freud’s psycho-analytic procedure, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 7 (ed. J. Strachey), Hogarth Press, London (original work published in 1904). Greenwald, H. (1973) Decision Therapy, Wyden, New York. Hinkle, D. (1965) The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications. Ph.D thesis. Ohio State University. Kaldor, M. (2006) New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, 2nd edn, Polity Press, Cambridge. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York (reprinted by Routledge, 1991). Kelly, G.A. (1969) Man’s construction of his alternatives, in Clinical Psychology and Personality: The Selected Papers of George Kelly (ed B. Maher), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 66–93. Mowrer, O.H. (1950) Learning Theory and Personality Dynamics, Ronald Press, New York. Murray-Prior, R.B. and Wright, V.E. (2001) Influence of strategies and heuristics on farmers’ response to change under uncertainty. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 45, 573–598. Nathanson, D.L. (1986) The empathic wall and the ecology of affect. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 41, 171–187. Nathanson, D.L. (1992) Shame and Pride, Norton, London. Neimeyer, R.A. and Tschudi, F (2003) Community and coherence: narrative contributions to the psychology of conflict and loss, in Narrative and Consciousness (eds G.F. Fireman, T.E. McVay, Jr., and O.J. Flanagan), Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 166–191. Parker, C. (2002) The Open Corporation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Slade, P.D. and Sheehan, M.J. (1979) The measurement of conflict in repertory grids. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 519–524. Tschudi, F. (1977) Loaded and honest questions: a construct theory view of symptoms and therapy, in New Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (ed. D. Bannister), Academic Press, London, pp. 321–350. Tschudi, F. (2009) Landmarks on a personal odyssey, in On Reflection: Emphasizing the Personal in Personal Construct Theory (ed. R. Butler), Wiley-Blackwell, London, pp. 263–278. Tschudi, F. and Reichelt, S. (2004) Conferencing when therapy is stuck. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 23, 38–52. Tschudi, F. and Rommetveit, R. (1982) Sociality, intersubjectivity, and social processes: the sociality corollary, in The Construing Person (eds J.C. Mancuso and J.R. Adams-Webber), Praeger, New York, pp. 235–261. Tschudi, F. and Sandsberg, S. (1984) On the advantages of symptoms: exploring the client’s construing. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25, 69–77.

108

Personal Construct Methodology

Winter, D.A. (1987) Personal construct psychotherapy as a radical alternative to social skills training, in Personal Construct Therapy Casebook (eds R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer), Springer, New York, pp. 107–123. Winter, D.A. (1988a) Reconstructing an erection and elaborating ejaculation: personal construct theory perspectives on sex therapy. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 81–99. Winter, D.A. (1988b) Constructions in social skills training, in Experimenting with Personal Construct Psychology (eds F. Fransella and L. Thomas), Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 342–356. Winter, D.A. (2006) Destruction as a constructive choice, in Forensic Psychiatry: Influences of Evil (ed. T. Mason), Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp. 153–177.

5

The Self-Characterization Technique: Uses, Analysis and Elaboration Nadia Crittenden and Chantel Ashkar What is a Self-Characterization? The self-characterization, also known as the character sketch, is a technique within Personal Construct Therapy that aims primarily to tap directly into the client’s personal construction system, that is, the ways in which the client understands and interprets himself or herself (Kelly, 1991, Vol. 1, p. 243). It is a brief, written exercise asking the client to write about himself or herself in a way that may be utilized at some time during therapy. This time can range from before therapy begins to any particular point in the process that the therapist feels would be useful. The client may choose to write the self-characterization during a session or treat it as homework so he or she has more time to think about it. Kelly originally presents the self-characterization, or character sketch, as an elaboration of clinical methodology “since our theory was designed primarily with the area of clinical psychology as its focus of convenience” (Kelly, 1991, Vol. 1, p. 239) and as an extension of the credulous approach (Kelly, 1991, p. 241). It was used by Kelly as a means of identifying how a person structures their world, how they see themselves within this world and finally how they handle their world (Bannister and Fransella, 1986). Kelly (1991) viewed the self-characterization as a method that supported the role-relationship in the clinical setting within an overall theory

Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

110

Personal Construct Methodology

“which particularly lends itself to the establishment of just such a role relationship between psychologist and client” (Kelly, 1991, p. 240). To explain the concept of role relationship in this context, Kelly uses the analogy of a teacher marking arithmetic papers – the teacher may simply look at the right and wrong answers, or may peruse the paper to understand the method and reasoning by which the pupil arrived at the answers, be they right or wrong. In the latter case, the teacher would be establishing a role relationship where both teacher and pupil can work together to understand and improve the learning process. Similarly with client and psychologist – by adopting the credulous approach and giving attention to the client’s construing processes, whether perceived as accurately reflecting events or not, the psychologist is setting up a context of mutual exploration and understanding. In this context therefore, Kelly presents the self-characterization as an application of the credulous approach (Kelly, 1991) which requires the therapist to maintain belief in what the client is saying about him/herself whether or not the information appears to conform to what seem to be apparent facts. Kelly emphasizes that, in the phenomenological sense, the client “like the proverbial customer – is always right” (Kelly, 1991, p. 241) in that there is always a basic truth in what the client saying. As in the arithmetic analogy, the point is not whether the client is right or wrong, but the truth of how the client sees him/herself and how this is described to the therapist, even when it may be deliberately phrased to mislead. The discerning therapist remains aware of any misleading elements, respects their content and scrutinizes them in the context of other information available. As Kelly points out, the therapist is likely to find the “incorrect” elements more useful when seeking to understand the client’s reasoning, keeping in mind that the client is speaking in terms of his/her own constructs of him/herself and also of the therapist and of the whole situation (Kelly, 1991, p. 241). The therapist therefore is interested in this piece of raw data, from a number of different perspectives. Of primary interest is the client’s personal construct system and how he/she structures a world that supports the role(s) he/she plays. The relationship between the client’s construct system and the therapist’s construct system needs to be clearly understood also and the difference between them respected and maintained so that the client is not being viewed, either deliberately or unwittingly, in the context of the therapist’s world.

The Self-Characterization Technique

111

Eliciting a Self-Characterization Kelly (1991) describes the self-characterization as “a simple approach which has proved useful in arriving at a clinical understanding of clients” (p. 242). He puts the request to the client in the following terms: I want you to write a character sketch of Harry Brown, just as if he were the principal character in a play. Write it as it might be written by a friend who knew him very intimately and very sympathetically, perhaps better than anyone ever really could know him. Be sure to write it in the third person. For example, start out by saying, “Harry Brown is . . .”. (Kelly, 1991, p. 241)

As with all Kelly’s writing, he goes to some trouble to justify his use of words and, as always, his choices reflect important outcomes. In justifying the above protocol, he emphasized that the wording had gone through a great number of revisions. The phrase “character sketch” he felt gave the client more scope for using his own construct system, more so than phrases such as “self-description” or “self-analysis.” Also, the term “sketch” indicated that an overall structure was being sought rather than detailed elements (Kelly, 1991, p. 242). Kelly seemed to be saying, in effect, “Give me an idea who you really are, more so than you might tell anyone else ” Privacy, intimacy and trust are implied, all key elements of the role relationship. He emphasizes that wholeness is important and that a “catalogue of faults” be avoided. The focus is on writing in the third person from the perspective of a sympathetic, accepting friend, thus also providing a nonthreatening context. Kelly explains that by including the phrase that the sketch is being written from the perspective of someone who knows the client “better than anyone ever really could know him,” the client is steered away from choosing someone close and writing it from what the client thinks that person’s perspective would be. Kelly also deliberately avoids giving a structure such as asking for family characteristics, social context, childhood history etc as he had found this inhibited spontaneity and could result in the loss of the client’s own conceptualizations. Essentially, the words have been carefully chosen by Kelly to reduce any threat that may present itself as well as allow the person undertaking the exercise to be as objective as possible (Bannister and Fransella, 1986).

112

Personal Construct Methodology

Analyzing the Self-Characterization The following example of a self-characterization is brief but will serve to illustrate methods for analyzing this raw data or protocol. Kelly (1991) gave extensive guidelines for analysis in Chapter 7 of his first volume, using a lengthy, complex example, which may be why his system has not received a lot of publicity. However, it repays close, patient perusal for the serious user of this technique. In this section, we will reproduce his basic structure for analysis and apply it our example in brief form to give the reader an idea of how one could proceed. Other ways of analyzing the data are also suggested afterwards. – Terry, aged 42 Terry is a real go-getter and has achieved a lot in his life. He has a fairly boring job as an accountant, but he has made a great success of it and made a lot of money. He doesn’t really mind the work, but he can think of a lot of other things he would have wanted to do. He’s not really all that happy, but feels he doesn’t really have any right to complain. He’s got a great family but he wishes his wife would relax more and be into having fun, especially now that he can afford it. The kids are better but his wife worries about them being spoiled. Terry feels that he’s running out of time in some ways and wants to do as much as he can. He would like to be able to talk to his wife about all his interests but she gets irritated and bored. He often feels lonely and depressed. But, hey, he feels he’s got to keep going to maintain his lifestyle, and anyway he shouldn’t be expecting more – he’s really got it all!

Kelly’s Approach to Analysis Kelly uses a number of subheadings and explanations to structure his approach to analysis. The same subheadings will be used here, firstly to simplify and clarify Kelly’s aims and secondly to apply them briefly to the example above.

First reactions to protocol Kelly warns the clinician to avoid beginning with the more conventional categorizationssuggested by othertheoreticalframeworks (i.e., psychoanalytic

The Self-Characterization Technique

113

or behaviorist etc.) or syntactical analysis. Instead, he suggests using the credulous approach, attempting to see the world through the client’s eyes, in this case, Terry’s eyes. Kelly uses the phrase “Nature babbling to herself” to describe how the clinician should listen (read) (Kelly, 1991, Vol. 1, p. 246), with the aim of understanding what the client is telling them about himself. He also suggests successively underscoring phrases and sentences that stand out for later juxtaposition with similar phrases throughout the protocol. In our example, such phrases could be: . . . real go-getter . . . achieved a lot . . . great success . . . . . . boring job . . . time running out . . . other things he would have wanted to do . . . . . . not really all that happy . . . no right to really complain . . . great family . . . . . . wishes his wife would relax more . . . have fun . . . can afford it . . . . . . she worries about the kids being spoiled . . . . . . wishes he could talk to her . . . she gets bored and irritated . . . . . . he gets lonely and depressed . . . got to keep going . . . maintain lifestyle ... . . . shouldn’t be expecting more . . . . . . got it all . . .

Observation of sequence and transition Kelly directs the clinician to bring the protocol into focus rather than attempting to score it in any way. One way to do this is to treat the protocol as “representing a true continuity, as far as the client is concerned” (Kelly, 1991, p. 247) and treating breaks in continuity as indications of a construct about which the client may be inarticulate. The above example for instance, has a clear contrast or discontinuity between positive and negative interpretations of Terry’s life in relation to his work, well-being, expectations and family. Two stories are being told at the same time with phrases interspersed. Treating the protocol as a true continuity enables both stories to be heard. In one continuous story he has a successful life and “has it all,” he has achieved a lot and has a great family. In the other continuous story, he has had a boring job, a bored, irritated wife, is frustrated as a father, feels lonely and depressed, feels time is running out, wants more but feels he has no right to expect more. The first story appears the stronger in the consciousness of the client at this point and he may not even be aware

114

Personal Construct Methodology

of the meaning of the second story. According to Kelly, a third story should eventually emerge from therapy that will make sense of the discontinuities or contradictions in his account.

Observation of organization Here, the clinician is directed to seek the topic sentences, looking at first and last sentences and sentences that carry the most generality. Kelly puts an emphasis on the first sentence and recommends that the clinician assumes it is the sentence that, for the moment, has the most generality for the client, representing also the safest place for him to start. This can often alert the clinician also to the mask the client wears. In our example, Terry could be seen as taking refuge in seeing himself as a go-getter and a success. His subsequent organization of phrases swings from one story to the other, indicating a conflict not far beneath the surface.

Reflection against context Next, Kelly recommends that each statement be taken as an independent declaration but also be explored for what it might mean in the context of the protocol as a whole, thus circumscribing each statement within a area defined by the context. To quote, “One may take each sentence in turn and mentally lay it beside each other sentence, then ask himself ‘What does each of these sentences mean in the context of the other?’” (Kelly, 1991, p. 248). For example, we can consider what Terry’s statement that he often feels lonely and depressed may mean in the context of other sentences and the story clearly becomes one of dissatisfaction in most aspects of his life. Similarly, the sentence that he is a real go-getter and has achieved a lot, in the context of the other sentences, tells the story of frustration and refuge.

Collation of terms Here Kelly is suggesting a look at the way in which terms may be repeated or linked to similar terms to indicate a construct that may not yet have a clear cut meaning for the client. In our example, we could look at terms such as “go getter,” “achieve,” “success,” “other things,” “having fun,” “talk about interests,” “got it all,” and see perhaps a construct related to satisfaction or fulfillment hiding there with its contrast pole hiding amongst “lonely and

The Self-Characterization Technique

115

depressed,” “wife bored and irritated,” “boring job,” “wife worried,” “time running out.”

Shifting emphasis Another little exercise is separating the protocol into units of meaning and placing the emphasis on each one in turn when reading. Kelly points out that we all have our own way of reading and placing emphasis on certain phrases, often being unaware that we are doing so. This exercise can make us aware of the different focus that can be gained by placing emphasis on each unit in turn and aware therefore of which focus the client may have intended or which tells us something more about the overall story he is telling. For example, Kelly suggests taking a sentence, dividing it into units and then reading it a number of times, placing the emphasis on each unit in turn. This is both a way of correcting the clinician’s bias and also becoming aware of other possible meanings the client may be trying to convey. For example, take Terry’s sentence, as divided into units below and read it eight times (in this as case, as there are eight units) placing the emphasis or focus on each unit in turn: He’s got a great family but he wishes his wife would relax more and be into having fun especially now that he can afford it. Given that Terry elaborates on his wife’s attitudes, this may be the unit he intended to underscore, or given his success materially, it may be the last unit. Equally, given that he concludes his protocol with the phrase “got it all,” it may be the first unit he intended as the focus. These are issues that may be explored further in therapy.

Restatement of argument Kelly suggests here that the clinician enhances understanding of the protocol by trying to express the same themes in his/her own words every

116

Personal Construct Methodology

now and again, almost as though the clinician were role-playing the client. In this way the clinician can attempt to subsume the client’s point of view rather than just memorize or categorize it (Kelly, 1991, p. 249). With our protocol for example, we could begin by saying “Terry is really goal-focused and attains the goals he sets for himself. His job isn’t all that exciting but he has done very well, developed expertise and it has really paid off . . . etc.” Such paraphrasing connects the clinician much more closely to story, giving an “inside” glimpse of how the client may be thinking and feeling. In Kelly’s terms, the clinician is now closer to playing a role in relation to the client (Sociality Corollary).

Analysis of contextual areas invoked by the protocol Kelly is referring here to the topical areas which the client raises in the protocol. He argues that these are the areas in which the client is most likely able to experiment or is seeking change. In our example, Terry talks about work, family and some personal feelings. He has not mentioned appearance, image, and sexuality but there is some hint of past life (when he might not have been able to afford things) and some hint of being aware of possibilities in relation to the future. This is quite quickly covered up though at the end where he subsides into not feeling he has any right to want more.

Thematic analysis Moving from topics to themes allows the clinician to look at client’s reasons and explanations (Kelly, 1991, p. 251). It can be noted whether the client relies on his own actions to find meaning, or historical explanations, or chance. The extent to which he understands the actions of others can also be noted. In our example, themes that emerge are material success (which Terry sees as a result of his own actions), family relationships (which Terry feels are governed by his wife’s attitudes), time passing (which Terry sees as inevitable but worrying) etc. Kelly emphasized the need to understand cause-and-effect constructs as revealed by a thematic analysis if the clinician wanted better understanding of how the client may insist on approaching therapeutic change (Kelly, 1991, p. 251). For instance, if Terry believes that his wife’s attitudes and behaviors are nothing to do with his actions, he will not easily believe that changes he makes will have an effect, or if he believes that he won’t have future

The Self-Characterization Technique

117

opportunities to different things, he won’t be inclined to simply try new things. Looking at prominent themes, elaborations of themes, opening and closing themes, where they run counter to one another, and viewing them as the way the client perceives cause-and-effect relationships helps the clinician to understand the most effective directions to take in therapy (Kelly, 1991, p. 252).

Dimensional analysis Kelly sees dimensional analysis as being even more meaningful than either area or thematic analysis. He is referring to the “channels through which the client’s psychological processes flow in search of the future” (Kelly, 1991, p. 252). The focus here is on similarities and contrasts in the protocol. People, by nature, continuously choose between dichotomized alternatives, so the clinician can become aware of the dimensions in the protocol and how the client characterizes him/herself along these. With our example, Terry sees himself as successful but describes himself also as someone for whom time is running out for doing something different. He sees himself as “having it all” but also describes himself as lonely and depressed. Kelly’s view is that the last construct in the protocol often indicates the future direction of the therapeutic sessions as it can reflect the more intimate, less articulate theme. In Terry’s case, that is the theme of dissatisfaction but feeling he has no right to ask for more and masking desire for more with saying he’s “got it all,” the dimensions of which do indicate the central problem he is facing. In this phase, Kelly also advocates the perusal of terms the client uses, the way the client defines terms, use of punctuation, implied equivalences (e.g., for Terry, relaxing and having fun seem equivalent to enjoying spending money). Complexity of vocabulary, cultural identifications, discriminatory ability are all useful in perusing the dimensions of the protocol.

Professional subsuming of personal constructs Finally, Kelly directs the clinician to look at his/her own professional system of constructs and apply these to the protocol. For analysis within the Personal Construct framework, these are based on the professional constructs within this theory such as the permeability of constructs, range of convenience, loose construing, tight construing, aggression, hostility, guilt, threat, the C-P-C cycle, the Creativity Cycle and so forth. These constructs

118

Personal Construct Methodology

make possible a sophisticated meta-analysis of the protocol that enables the clinician to draw more fully on the considerable Personal Construct Theory resources and techniques. Kelly’s (1991) approach to analysis of protocols in Chapter 7 of his first volume is exhaustive and complex but careful perusal of his directions will yield many insights into ways of elaborating on his basic structure. We have attempted to provide an initial, simplified map through his process with examples that clarify his ideas while recognizing that our own interpretations and experiences of his process also color our account. Hopefully this attempt will provide some encouragement and assistance to those who wish to navigate Kelly’s lengthy analysis and make use of his structure. Jackson (1988) could also be consulted for further suggestions for utilizing Kelly’s instructions for analysis and for some detailed examples of analyzing and scoring adolescent self-characterizations.

Other Ways of Analyzing the Self-Characterization A useful, brief and immediate way of identifying a number of constructs from a self-characterization is to include the client in the identification process. Working with the client, each personal descriptor is underlined and the client is asked to elaborate verbally on the meaning. Then, for each descriptor, the client is asked to identify the contrast pole. From our example above, Terry was asked to elaborate on his construct of “go-getter” – how does he understand that term, how would he describe a person who was a go-getter. Then, how would he describe someone who was not like that. For example: THERAPIST: TERRY: THERAPIST: TERRY:

Can you tell me some more about your image of a go-getter? How would you describe someone like that? Well, you know . . . someone who achieves their goals . . . who knows what he wants and gets it . . . And how would you describe someone who is not like that? Ahh . . . someone who is more easy-going I guess . . . someone who doesn’t push . . . I suppose someone who is satisfied with less . . .

This dialogue yields the construct Go-getter/has goals, gets what he wants vs. Easy-going/doesn’t push/satisfied with less

The Self-Characterization Technique

119

The same questions were asked about the descriptors “success,” “great family,” “boring job,” “wanting to do other things,” “time running out,” “lonely and depressed,” “wife who worries,” “bored and irritated,” “got to keep going,” “maintain lifestyle,” “shouldn’t be expecting more,” “got it all.” These brief dialogues yielded the constructs Success/achieving what you want vs. someone who doesn’t achieve/gives up Great family/enjoy things together vs. Don’t really talk/live separately Boring job/just have to get it done vs. loving what you do/scope for new things Wanting to do other things/not be trapped vs. giving up/settling for less Time running out/no more chances vs. more control/able to change Lonely and depressed/feeling isolated vs. being able to share Wife who worries/can’t just enjoy things vs. someone who can have fun Bored and irritated/impatient/negative vs. interested/wants to explore Got to keep going/can’t fall behind vs. letting go/settling for less Maintain lifestyle/keep up vs. easy going/settling for less Shouldn’t be expecting more/grateful vs. never satisfied/feeling something missing Got it all/everything anyone would want vs. feeling something is missing As can seen, elaborating on the meaning of each descriptor and seeking the contrast pole gives a rich array of information from the client and paves the way for meaningful dialogue on a range of issues. The client’s ambivalence about his life, family and achievements is able to be explored in a structured way by addressing each construct. Some (or all) of the constructs can be chosen for laddering (see chapter on the laddering technique) which will yield the client’s core constructs and assist the client to stronger selfunderstanding. This approach to analysis involves the client directly in the analysis and strengthens the collaborative nature of the therapeutic alliance. The client can be powerfully affected by the depth and richness of the information that is clearly coming from his/her own interpretations and not from the therapist’s perspective. Using another approach, Feixas and Villegas (1991) created a grid-based method, the “textual grid,” for analyzing autobiographical texts, using Allport’s “Letters from Jenny” (1965) to illustrate. Their methodology provides a rich and valuable guide for analyzing autobiographical material both from immediately elicited material and from material written in the past.

120

Personal Construct Methodology

Uses and Elaborations of the Self-Characterization Although originally developed as part of the clinical process, clinicians and researchers have elaborated on the usefulness of this technique. Hardison and Neimeyer (2007) found that personality characteristics of other people were expressed within the character sketches as well as personal constructs related to the individual’s own personality. This not only allowed the individual to express how they saw themselves in relation to other people in their lives, but also how they saw themselves in relation to people in a wider community (Androutsopoulou, 2001). The flexibility of the selfcharacterization technique also reduced the degree to which a psychologist could unduly influence their client (Hardison and Neimeyer, 2007). The use of the third person format of the character sketch, allowed clients to express issues that may be otherwise too emotional to talk about initially with therapists (Androutsopoulou, 2001). Self characterizations have also been used to attain a score of self esteem. Hardison and Neimeyer (2007) used obtained scores of self esteem by using a ratio of positive to negative constructs that were used as descriptors by participants in their self-characterizations. Therefore, the greater number of positive constructs signified a higher self-esteem with those individuals using a greater number of negative constructs as descriptors representing lower self-esteem (Hardison and Neimeyer, 2007). Androutsopolou (2001) describes the use of self-characterization as a narrative tool, applied in therapy with individuals and families, arguing that this technique is a strong aid to storytelling in therapy (p. 79). She explores the use of self-characterization in therapy based on the person as they used to be, as they think they will be and also what they think their ideal self could be (Fransella, 1995) as well as utilizing the family character sketch (Alexander and Neimeyer, 1989). Androutsopolou focuses on the character sketch as a whole narrative, the story of how a person understands their world. It may be used with a particular focus (e.g., relationships with others) or a way of monitoring changes in therapy, or as a basis for a therapeutic program (Fransella and Dalton, 1990; Androutsopolou, 2001). The “family characterization sketch” (Alexander and Neimeyer, 1989) was created by asking each family member to write the sketch individually during a therapy session with the aim of identifying common family constructs. The instructions were modified to read: Write a brief sketch of your family. Write from the perspective of someone who knows the family intimately and sympathetically, perhaps better than

The Self-Characterization Technique

121

anyone really knows the family. You should write it in the third person. For example, begin by saying “I know the Smith family . . .”. (Alexander and Neimeyer, 1989, p. 113).

Jackson and Bannister (1985) used the technique with children and adolescents, finding that children responded well to the way in which the writing of a self-characterization “reduces threat and enables young persons to describe themselves in personally meaningful ways” (Jackson, 1988, p. 224). To adapt the instructions for use with adolescents, Jackson and Bannister reworded Kelly’s original instruction in the following way: Tell me what sort of by or girl Sally Jones is. If you like, I will be your secretary and write down what you say. Tell me about yourself as if you were being described by an imaginary friend who knows you and likes you and above all understands you very well. This person would be able to say what your character is and everything about you. Perhaps you could begin with “Sally is . . .” and say something important about yourself. Try to fill this page. (Jackson, 1988, p. 224)

Detailed examples of adolescent self-characterizations and methods for analyzing and scoring these can be found in Jackson’s (1988) book chapter titled “Self-characterization: dimensions of meaning.”

Elaborating by Using the Concept of Many Selves An even richer array of constructs and information can be gained by utilizing the concept of many selves or “community of self.” Mair (1977) introduced this metaphor as a way of addressing the problem of a society and psychology that places so much emphasis on individuality in the context of individual differences that the actual individuality or inner nature of the individual person is by-passed. Mair invites us to explore the inner nature of individuals by seeing each person and ourselves as a “community.” He begins by positing the smallest community – that of two people only – and comments that we have all experienced being in “two minds” about something, or having a “battle” with ourselves over something. From there, Mair points out, it is relatively easy to enlarge this “community” with incorporating other “selves” and seeing ourselves in a number of different ways and indeed, as a number of different people in

122

Personal Construct Methodology

different contexts (Mair, 1977). Mair explored the “community” in dialogue with clients and found that people interpreted the idea of community in diverse ways. Some saw themselves as mini political systems, or troupes of performers (Mair, 1977). In our work, we found selves to be most often related to the different roles we play in life (for example, self as son or daughter, self as partner/wife/husband, self as parent, self as friend etc.) and also in relation to our special interests (for example, self as fisherman, self as reader, self as dancer, self as film buff etc.) or even related to our judgment of ourselves (for example “best self” and “worst self” etc.). As Mair pointed out, being aware of and identifying our different “selves,” recognizing the conflicts that can arise, knowing which selves are permanent, transitory, forced, stronger, weaker etc can be a rich source of therapeutic interaction for both the client and therapist. It is also useful for seeking information in a research context, especially in the areas of communication and conflict resolution. We found that combining the idea of community with selfcharacterization provides a clear, usefully structured way of exploring the diversity within a person and eliciting constructs. Identifying such selves begins with asking the client/participant for an overall self-characterization first, using the earlier instructions, without mentioning other selves. When the client has completed, this, he/she is asked to make a list of as many selves as he/she can think of at that time. Prompts can be given to encourage the client to understand what is being asked. A script that has been useful is as follows: Now I would like you to think about all the ways in which you are different within yourself - think of yourself as a sort of “community” made up of all the different parts of your personality and treat each one as a separate kind of person. Make a list of all the ones you can think of just now. For example, you may be a different person at work or at home, or when you are doing something you really love, or something you don’t like doing, or when you are a being a parent, or a partner . . . things like that. Write down “self as . . .” for each one (Client makes a list, then . . .)

And now, look at each of these selves separately and write a selfcharacterization, just like the one you wrote first, for each one of these selves that you have identified. Take your time and think about how you would describe each self from the point of view of someone very close to

The Self-Characterization Technique

123

them, sympathetic, knowing them better than anyone could ever really know them. Using the example above (Terry), the following selves were identified (given in the order Terry listed them): Self as accountant (Acc) Self as husband (Hus) Self as father (Par) Self as stamp collector (StCo) Self as traveler (Trav) The following self characterizations were then elicited: As an accountant, Terry is very accurate and painstaking. He is aware of the responsibility of dealing with other people’s money and knows how important it is. He is very good at what he does and prides himself on jobs well done. He knows his worth by the reactions he gets from his clients, especially the important ones, and feels valued when they appreciate his work. Terry enjoys his work, knowing that it is something he does very well. Sometimes he wonders what it would have been like to have done something entirely different, something “out there.” As a husband, Terry is relieved that he has been able to provide for his wife and can give her things she likes. He remembers being very nervous about getting married and worried about being able to support them. Terry loves his wife and tries to make her happy. He can’t understand why she doesn’t feel as happy as he does about being able to afford a nice home, nice things and being able to travel. He often worries about what to get her for her birthday or for Christmas as she doesn’t seem to like him spending money on her. He can’t understand that. He feels that most women would love that. As a father, Terry loves his children and loves giving them things. He is really happy when their faces light up. Terry wants his children grow up to be responsible and happy, but he feels they should enjoy their childhood. He remembers how hard-up his family was and how few “extras” they could afford. He wants his children to love learning so he tries to choose games and things that will encourage them to learn about the world. He has taken care to provide for their education. As a stamp collector, Terry lives in a world of his own. He loves the whole process – finding the stamps, soaking them off envelopes, drying them and mounting them. He is very happy when he can spend time learning about

124

Personal Construct Methodology

their history. They make him feel there is a whole world out there, full of difference, history and people. He feels that this is part of the childhood he would have like to have had where there was time and resources to explore other hobbies too. He has quite a valuable collection now. As a traveler, Terry feels like an explorer. He loves planning a trip and learning about all the places he will be visiting. Sometimes he feels that he is a different person altogether when traveling and sometimes he even pretends he is someone else, but just inside. He loves looking at people and wondering what their lives are like and loves feeling free to change his mind about where to go next while traveling. So he likes the travel plan to be flexible. He is sometimes depressed when it is time to go home. He feels like he is shrinking back down to size. Once again, each of these self-characterizations can be analyzed as above with the client, looking at the descriptors for each and identifying the bipolar constructs that emerge from each “self.” Constructs can be chosen for laddering to identify core constructs. The order in which the selves are listed can be noted and the client asked which self he or she consider to be the most powerful, which one the happiest, not happiest, weakest, most satisfied, most dissatisfied etc. The therapeutic context will often drive the subsequent questions. Constructs for each self can be analyzed for similarity (e.g., which constructs appear in more than one self, how do they relate to core constructs which have been elicited by laddering in the first, overall selfcharacterization, do they in fact reflect core constructs if they have appeared consistently) and also for positive and negative descriptors. Levels of personality integration can be explored using the similarities and differences between the sets of constructs related to each self. Self-characterizations can also be asked for “Self as child,” “Ideal self,” “Self as others see me” etc., depending on the context of the therapy or research and which comparisons may be useful. The multiple self-characterizations are also a nice way of identifying instances of Kelly’s Fragmentation Corollary, providing an interesting perspective of how it can manifest.

Constructing a Grid from Multiple Self-Characterizations Recently we have been experimenting with using constructs from the multiple self-characterizations to construct a grid as a way of looking at similarity and difference between selves, consistency in personality, and also

The Self-Characterization Technique

125

Table 5.1 A multiple self-characterizations grid using the selves as elements. Preferred pole

Non-preferred Acc Hus Par StCo Trav IS Osm 10yrs pole

Painstaking Having fun

1 5

3 5

1 2

1 1

5 1

1 1

1 5

1 3

Different, ‘out there’ Sure of self

7

7

5

2

2

1

7

7

1

6

3

1

1

1

6

3

Likes to spend

4

1

1

1

1

2

5

2

Loving, caring

4

6

7

6

6

7

4

7

Responsible, happy Loves learning Full of difference Having resources Explorer, feeling free

2

4

2

1

1

1

2

1

3 6

4 6

2 3

1 1

1 1

1 1

5 6

3 2

4

5

2

1

1

1

5

2

7

5

3

1

1

1

5

3

Careless unable to enjoy things ordinary nervous, not confident Worried about money Not caring about family Weak, immature Narrow, bored bland, boring Can’t do what you want shrunken

as a possible measure of personality integration. The grid is constructed with the selves as elements. These also include Ideal Self (IS), Self As Others See Me (Osm) and Self in 10 years time (10 yrs). The participant is asked to rank all the constructs elicited in order of most importance for them. The first 12 are chosen for the initial grid, though this can be expanded if the client feels other constructs should be included. Each self is then rated on a 7-point scale with the preferred pole being 1 and the nonpreferred pole being 7. A grid based on the example above is provided in Table 5.1. As can be noted, Ideal self, Self as others see me and Self in 10 years’ time have been added as elements. Other selves could also be added as elements in contexts where that might be useful e.g., Best self and Worst self. In our example it can be seen that Terry’s Stamp Collector, Traveler and Ideal Self are most similar and most positive. Accountant, Husband, As Others See Me are similar and mostly negative. Parent and 10 yrs are similar with a mixture of positive and negative with balance in favor of positive. In a

126

Personal Construct Methodology

therapeutic setting the grid provides many avenues of exploration, most notably the discrepancy between Terry’s more social, prominent roles as worker, husband and father and his more private roles as stamp collector, traveler and ideal self. Feixas and Villegas (1991) more complex method of analyzing autobiographical material could also be explored further in the context of multiple self-characterizations if the therapist is undertaking an heuristic enquiry into a client’s personal world.

Problems with the Self-Characterization Kelly himself pointed out the most obvious problem the self-characterization – namely that of how to treat this data. To quote “A verbatim protocol, such as we have presented, is, to many psychologists, a baffling accumulation of raw data . . . One cannot ‘score’ the protocol as one might wish . . .” (Kelly, 1991, Vol. 1, p. 247). Psychologists have since used some of Kelly’s ideas and created other ways as well, as described above. The brief analysis in particular gives immediate direction and structure to the analysis in which both client and therapist play an active role. Kelly’s longer treatment is full of productive ideas and elaborations of how to understand and make use of a client’s account of themselves. The problem that remains for individual therapists is how to make the best use of the information elicited in the analyses. Kelly directed therapists to use the self-characterization as a starting point for his concept of fixed-role therapy which he describes in detail in Chapter 8 of Volume 1. He provides a helpful detailed description of how the example in Chapter 7 can be incorporated into fixed-role therapy. Therapists applying the narrative approach have utilized that data as a context for ongoing therapeutic process, eliciting new self-characterizations at different stages in the therapy to reflect change and progress (multiple self-characterizations could be used here) and also utilizing family characterizations which had the added value of engaging the involvement of other family members in some cases, especially if they consented to write a family characterization also (Androutsopoulou, 2001). The problem of scoring needs further exploration with the brief analysis of multiple selves offering some possibilities in relation to number of times a construct is repeated, number of positive and negative constructs (already utilized by Hardison and Neimeyer, 2007), and as a grid. But the best way to solve problems is to experiment with this technique in as many contexts as can be created – in therapy, as a form of data collection in research, in the

The Self-Characterization Technique

127

context of conflict resolution, problem solving and in relation to communication issues. The self-characterization can be teamed with other measures to look at how people’s own accounts of themselves compare with their scores on a range of issues.

Conclusion In this chapter we have described the self-characterization technique as Kelly first presented it and then looked at the ways it has been used since then. We have looked at the way self-characterizations are constructed, at both original and new methods of analysis as well as possible future elaborations. This technique is far from having reached its potential as a strong, useful, creative approach to therapy and in other contexts as the variety of use that already exists may indicate. Kelly’s original account remains rich with ideas and its complexity should not deter practitioners from spending the time needed to master his concepts, heartened by the knowledge that Kelly fully approved of people interpreting his ideas in ways other than his and using his ideas as a springboard for their own.

References Alexander, P.C. and Neimeyer, G.J. (1989) Constructivism and family therapy. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 111–122. Allport, G.W. (1965) Letters from Jenny, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York. Androutsopoulou, A. (2001) The self-characterization as a narrative tool: Applications in therapy with individuals and families. Family Process, 40, 79–94. Bannister, D and Fransella, F. (1986) Inquiring Man: The Psychology of Personal Constructs, 3rd edn, Croom Helm, London. Feixas, G. and Villegas, M. (1991) Personal construct analysis of autobiographical texts: A method presentation and case illustration. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 4, 31–83. Fransella, F. (1981) Nature babbling to herself. The self-characterization as a therapeutic tool, in Personal Construct Psychology: Recent Advances in Theory and Practice (eds H. Bonarius, R. Holland,and S. Rosenberg), Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 219–230. Fransella, F. (1995) George Kelly, Sage Publications, London. Fransella, F. (ed.) (2003) International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. Ltd, Chichester.

128

Personal Construct Methodology

Fransella, F and Dalton, P. (1990) Personal Construct Counseling in Action, 2nd edn, Sage, London. Fransella, F. and Thomas, L. (eds) (1988) Experimenting with Personal Construct Psychology, Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York. Hardison, H.G. and Neimeyer, R.A. (2007) Numbers and narratives: Quantitative and qualitative convergence across constructivist assessments, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 20, 285–308. Jackson, S. (1988) Self-characterization: Dimensions of meaning, in Experimenting with Personal Construct Psychology ( F. Fransella and L. Thomas), Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York, pp. 223–231. Jackson, S. and Bannister, D. (1985) Growing into self, in Issues and Approaches in Personal Construct Theory (ed. D. Bannister), Academic Press. London. Kelly, G.A. (1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. 1 (First published in 1955), Routledge. London and New York. Mair, J.M.M. (1977) The community of self, in New Perspectives in Personal Construct Psychology (ed. D. Bannister), Academic Press, New York. Neimeyer, R.A. (1994) The role of client-generated narratives in psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 7, 229–242.

6

Experience Cycle Methodology: A Method for Understanding the Construct Revision Pathway Lindsay G. Oades and Linda L. Viney Similar to Oades and Viney (2000), this chapter describes the Experience Cycle Methodology (ECM). After describing the Experience Cycle we outline the five principles that have guided the development of the ECM and consider important aspects of a semi-structured interview. We then provide three examples of the ECM involving stories from adolescents of their risk-taking experiences (Oades and Viney, 1997, 1999). We demonstrate how the model can be used quantitatively, using a sample of 121 Australian adolescents. This research empirically demonstrates relationships between the phases of the Experience Cycle as they relate to construct change. We propose a construct revision pathway, and provide empirical evidence that if construct change has occurred; it is likely that invalidation has occurred, tight predictions were made with high investment, or both. Suggestions for future use and modification of the ECM are provided including (a) prospective use of the ECM, (b) linking of the ECM with a diary methodology, and (c) further validation of this methodology, particularly refinements to the operationalization of investment and construct change.

The Experience Cycle Kelly (1970) described the Experience Cycle later than the original 1955 theory of personal constructs (Winter, 1992). The Experience Cycle corresponds to Kelly’s analogy of a person as behaving like a scientist by Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

130

Personal Construct Methodology

anticipating the future and experimenting with their behavior, and hence summarizes many of the important aspects of Kelly’s theory. In this sense a methodology bases on the Experience Cycle is likely “to be true to” personal construct theory. The first phase of the Experience Cycle is the anticipation phase, in which a prediction is formulated concerning a particular event. The second phase is the investment phase, in which the person fully involves himself or herself in this anticipation. The third phase, the encounter phase consists of the person openly and actively experiencing the event. The fourth phase, the confirmation and disconfirmation phase constitutes the assessment of this encounter in relation to the initial anticipation. In the final constructive revision phase, the person reconstrues, if necessary, based on the evidence obtained during the encounter. A fresh anticipation and a further cycle may then occur.

Principles that Guided the Development of the Experience Cycle Methodology There were four main principles that guided the development of the Experience Cycle Methodology (Oades, 2000; Oades and Viney, 1998). We now describe these principles: 1. The methodology will be consistent with Personal Construct Theory in terms of its theoretical constructs. 2. The methodology will emphasize the process nature of construing consistent with Kelly’s later writings (Butt, 1996). 3. The methodology will be consistent with the nonquestionnaire ethos espoused by Kelly (Viney, 1988). 4. The methodology will be primarily qualitative and idiographic (Allport, 1937; Lamiell, 1995; Windelband, 1904), so as to highlight personal meanings through narrative, yet still be able to integrate with quantitative research (Jick, 1979). 5. The methodology will be simple and flexible so that it may be used by researchers and practitioners. Consistent with the first principle of theoretical consistency, the Experience Cycle was chosen as the appropriate theoretical framework

Experience Cycle Methodology

131

because, in terms of personal construct theoretical concepts, it can be described as a “prototypical” theoretical concept as it includes a great number of concepts from Personal Construct Theory (Lakoff, 1987). Hence, if a methodology based on the Experience Cycle is used by a person who is not conversant with its theoretical origin there is a greater chance the methodology will maintain consistency with its parent theory (Viney and Oades, 1998). Consistent with the second principle of emphasizing the process nature of construing, in contrast to the historical focus on the structure of construct systems with grid methodologies, the Experience Cycle was again seen as the appropriate theoretical concept. Being a cycle, the Experience Cycle emphasizes the process of change. The Experience Cycle is consistent with use of the verb “to construe” rather than the noun “construct.” The emphasis on process of the Experience Cycle is consistent with Butt’s (1996) view of person-as-process and seeing Personal Construct Theory as a theory of social action rather than the cognitive readings of personal construct theory (Balnaves, Caputi, and Oades, 2000; Butt, 1996). The Experience Cycle is also consistent with more contemporary views of the self as constructed and reconstructed (Cox and Lyddon, 1997; Harre and Gillet, 1994; Guidano, 1991). In terms of the third principle and the type of methodology, Kelly (1955/ 1991/1991) was critical of questionnaire methodologies (Viney, 1988). For this reason we chose a semi-structured interview format as the appropriate form of methodology. This relates directly to the fourth principle of focusing on qualitative meanings and the fifth principle of flexibility. Smith (1995b) asserts that semi-structured interviewing has a “natural” fit with qualitative analysis (Filstead, 1979). Smith (1995b) states that the method gives the researcher and respondent much more flexibility than the more conventional structured interview, questionnaire or survey. This enables the researcher to follow up particularly interesting avenues that emerge in the interview and the respondent is able to give more information. The aim of qualitative analysis is to understand the qualitative meanings rather than reduce the responses to quantitative categories (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Smith (1995b, p. 11) states that in a structured interview, the interviewer will aim to: (a) use short specific questions, (b) read the question exactly as on schedule, (c) ask the questions in the identical order specified by the schedule, and (d) ideally, have precoded response categories,

132

Personal Construct Methodology

enabling the questioner to match what the respondent says against one of the categories on the schedule. Smith (1995b, p. 12) contrasts this with a semi-structured interview, wherein: (a) there is an attempt to establish rapport with the respondent, (b) the ordering of questions is less important, (c) the interviewer has more freedom to probe interesting areas that arise, and (d) the interview can follow the respondent’s interests or concerns. Further in line with the qualitative and narrative emphasis the Experience Cycle is a flexible framework which allows a personal experience in a natural flow of events. Moreover, the narrative nature of the proposed methodology operationalizes some of the recent claims from Mancuso (1996) that a story is an anticipatory device and the increasing emphasis on narrative constructivist literature (Viney, 1993; Mair, 1989; Vogel, 1994). Relevant to the third principle of a qualitative and idiographic approach, Kelly was known for novel combinations of quantitative and qualitative methodologies such as the repertory grid technique. Hence, while the ECM has been developed to be primarily a qualitative methodology it is deliberately designed so not to exclude articulation with quantitative methodology or for responses within the phases of the experience cycle to be coded into categories that may be treated quantitatively (Lamiell, 1995). Later in the chapter we demonstrate this technique and provide data on the relationships between the phases of the experience cycle.

A Description of the Experience Cycle Methodology The description we provide below is the method used with 121 adolescents based in Australian secondary schools, juvenile detention centers and first year university (Oades, 1999). The ECM questions are listed in Table 6.1. The ECM also includes Tschudi’s (1977) ABC technique to examine the future advantages and disadvantages of repeating or not repeating the action. In completing the semi-structured interview, the adolescents were asked to tell a story about any one of nine experiences (that could be perceived as risk-taking, including unprotected sex, protected sex, IV drug use, saying no to further alcohol, at beach on sunny day, discussing condom-use, asking someone out, public speaking and driving in a fast car) that they may have

Experience Cycle Methodology

133

Table 6.1 The Experience Cycle Methodology (ECM) proforma. Please tell me a story about X. I will ask questions and write some things down as we go. ANTICIPATION PHASE What things were you predicting would happen? What options did you see open to yourself at this time? Were you concerned about physical danger, what others may think of you, or what you may think of yourself? INVESTMENT PHASE How much did you want this prediction to come true or not to come true? How much did it matter to you at the time? ENCOUNTER PHASE Describe the actual experience of doing it? What was the context etc? CONFIRMATION/DISCONFIRMATION PHASE How did things go compared to what you initially thought would happen? How did the prediction go? What feelings did you have about this? CONSTRUCTIVE REVISION PHASE In general what things did you learn from this experience? NEXT TIME In terms of a next time (or a time since the story you described) will you or did you change as a result of this experience? Like, did/will you change the way you view things or your behavior? What things did/will you change for next time if there is one? What options do you see open to you now if you were in a similar situation? How do you now see the advantages and disadvantages of being in a similar situation in the future? ABC technique of Tschudi (1977). A1 Preferred? B1

C1

Do you have any other comments about that story?

Being involved

A2

Not being involved

Disadvantage of being involved Advantage of being involved

B2

Advantage of not being involved Disadvantage of not being involved

C2

134

Personal Construct Methodology

had. As a semi-structured interview the questions were covered exhaustively but in a free-flowing fashion and not given if the information was volunteered spontaneously. The method usually took around 15 minutes to complete. The interviewer wrote the answers down verbatim on a proforma sheet with subheadings corresponding to the phases of the experience cycle (see Table 6.1). The interviewer periodically summarized the answers back to the respondent to check their accuracy. The story usually began with the encounter phase, returned to the anticipation phase and then followed the phases of the experience cycle sequentially. Having described the procedure of the ECM in general we now provide examples of completed ECM’s from three of the adolescents who described their experiences of risk-taking (Oades and Viney, 1997).

Examples of the Experience Cycle Methodology: Adolescents Describe their Risk-Taking Experiences The narratives that follow illustrate the products of the Experience Cycle Methodology. Each narrative is ordered in the sequential phases of the experience cycle, even though the interviewee may not have stated them in this order. To understand the context of the story it is useful to read first the encounter phase section of narrative and then return to the anticipation phase and read onwards to follow the phases of the experience cycle.

Unprotected sex “Dana,” a 20-year-old female in a regional university college describes her experience of unprotected sex. Unprotected sex is described by Dana as “just the moment type of deal” and “whatever happens happens,” supporting the idea that she made loose predictions and did not anticipate that she may be in that “risky situation.” Dana’s description is also consistent with the personal construct definition of risk-taking as impulsive in terms of the circumspection-preemption-control cycle (Oades and Viney, 1997), evidenced by her implication “horny so . . .” Anticipation phase What things were you predicting would happen? To have a good time, get drunk. What options did you see open to yourself at this time?

Experience Cycle Methodology

135

1. Use a condom, ask, horny so . . . 2. Have sex. Just the moment type of deal. I’m not heavily into having unsafe sex. Were you concerned about danger, what others may think or what you may think of yourself? Danger – no What others think – no Investment phase How much did you want this prediction to come true? How much did it matter? Just kinda going out after classes and getting drunk/party and whatever happens happens. Encounter phase Describe the actual experience of doing it? I was at a fraternity party, just drinking. Get drunk and stuff. Start screwing around and then head back to the room. Start messing around on the bed. Ask you if you want to have sex and I ask about a condom. He says he doesn’t have one and I say that’s fine and we have sex. Confirmation/disconfirmation phase How did things go compared to what you initially thought would happen? Weren’t expecting to have sex. I thought that was a bonus. Next morning, feelings, scared of pregnancy. It’s amazing that I find it more scary. Constructive revision phase What things did you learn from this experience? I wish I had learned something but I didn’t, not enough to take precautionary measures. It’s only under the influence of alcohol, never when I’m sober. Next time Did you change as a result of this experience? No What things will you change for next time if there is one? Don’t really have sex that randomly, more cautious (this has been since). What options do you see open to you now? 1. No sex if no condom 2. Leave

136

Personal Construct Methodology

How do you now see the advantages and disadvantages?

A1

Unsafe sex A2 Not being involved

Being involved

Preferred? B1 Disadvantage of being involved

C1 None

STD’s, pregnancy, disrespect yourself Advantage of being involved

B2

C2

X Advantage of not being involved Remain physically healthier. More respectful Disadvantage of not being involved It’s fun, it’s better without a condom (but there are some things that you’ve just gotta do)

Christy stated that she did not really learn anything from this single experience, referring to it as occurring only when she is drunk.

Intravenous drug use “Jono,” a 15-year-old male in a metropolitan juvenile justice center, describes his first experience of injecting Heroin. Unlike the story of Dana above, Jono planned this risk-taking experiment. A further difference, was that to Jono this really mattered at the time, he had a high psychological investment in the action (Walker et al., 1999). Anticipation phase What things were you predicting would happen? First time. Planned. Went and done a wrought, got a few hundred. What options did you see open to yourself at this time? Do it, do it all the time. Were you concerned about danger, what others may think or what you may think of yourself? Danger – I have to admit that I pulled my arm away a bit. Bit worried at the time. What others think – no. Investment phase How much did you want this prediction to come true? How much did it matter?

Experience Cycle Methodology

137

It mattered, I wanted it, the second time I went to Cabba and got my own. Encounter phase Describe the actual experience of doing it? Me and a friend, a bloke, in Cabramatta, got a cap, back of some flats, had a shot. Felt all funny and that. Kept going on all night. Went back to our house. Had some cones in my room. Kept on going all night. Woke up in the morning and then couldn’t remember a bit of yesterday. Confirmation/disconfirmation phase How did things go compared to what you initially thought would happen? I’d seen people before on it, good. I wanted to do it again. It felt mad, good, lighter. Constructive revision phase What things did you learn from this experience? You throw up sometimes. Takes ages. Have to put water in the cap and that. Next time Did you change as a result of this experience? Maybe What things will you change for next time if there is one? Do it again What options do you see open to you now? Do it How do you now see the advantages and disadvantages?

A1 Preferred? B1

C1

Being involved Disadvantage of being involved Nothing Advantage of being involved Feels good

Heroin A2

Not being involved

B2

X Advantage of not being involved

C2

Nothing Disadvantage of not being involved The feeling

The simplicity of Jono’s decision making is evident from the ABC technique above. This example demonstrates the limits of the methodology

138

Personal Construct Methodology

in terms of the verbal ability required of the participant. Jono, like many of the adolescents, males particularly, in the juvenile justice centers did not have strong verbal skills. As the ECM depends on narratives it should not be employed with participants with verbal abilities less than that of someone like Jono.

“Coming out” “Jade,” a 15-year-old secondary school student describes her experience of telling her friends that she is more sexually attracted to females than males. Anticipation phase What things were you predicting would happen? Thought that some people would react badly. Wasn’t sure. Wasn’t expecting that much. What options did you see open to yourself at this time? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Why should I tell them? Just tell one or two Don’t tell them at all Just hint at it/not pretend

Were you concerned about danger, what others may think or what you may think of yourself? Danger – not danger What others think – if they then to go off and say “guess what?” I risked losing friends and what people may think. My father also works at the school and still doesn’t know. Investment phase How much did you want this prediction to come true? How much did it matter? I really wanted to keep those friends, not have them to draw away from me. Sort of worried that they would be nervous. I didn’t want them to react as I foresaw. Encounter phase Describe the actual experience of doing it? Group of friends had been telling me how wonderfully open minded they were, about being gay. Tried to tell them that’s what I am, as a group.

Experience Cycle Methodology

139

Confirmation/disconfirmation phase How did things go compared to what you initially thought would happen? Much better, at first they were undecided about how to react. They just got used to it and didn’t really change that much. People who weren’t my friends tend to treat me much worse. Constructive revision phase What things did you learn from this experience? If they’re your friends they will stick with you. They are not likely to take one piece and move away. It’s not that bad to take the risk. Even if they had moved away from me I could always make new friends. Next time Did you change as a result of this experience? Yes What things will you change for next time if there is one? Probably spend more time judging reactions and tell more people singularly. Work out whether they’re prejudiced. Not worry as much about reactions. What options do you see open to you now? (1) Be more open, tell singularly (2) Not telling some people How do you now see the advantages and disadvantages? “Telling” of homosexuality A1

Being involved

A2

Not being involved

Preferred? B1

X Disadvantage of being involved

B2

Advantage of not being involved

Them being less careful and telling people I might not like to le told C1

Advantage of being involved Can now say what I like, knowing that I’m not gonna shock people or offend them.

C2

Aren’t that many – less chance of people making assumptions. People in general. Disadvantage of not being involved Can’t always be yourself if you’re around an older group.

140

Personal Construct Methodology

Other comments After that I was much more willing to talk to others about their sexuality, or help others if they were having troubles themselves. More free to be part of gay community. We have provided three examples of the products of the ECM with adolescent participants. Adult participants are likely to be more verbal than adolescents and hence will provide even richer narratives than those provided above. We describe now how the narratives in each phase of the experience cycle may be coded and converted into quantitative data.

Quantitative Relationships Between the Phases of the Experience Cycle For the sample of 121 adolescents all phases of the experience cycle narratives except the encounter phase were each coded into two categories by two independent raters (Cohen, 1960; Perreault and Leigh, 1989). These categories are illustrated in Table 6.2. To ensure interrater reliability the phases were coded according to a written protocol specifying examples of inclusion and exclusion to each group. It was hypothesized that those participants who were rated as reporting Significant Construct Revision in their ECM narrative would be rated as being within the following groups (a) Tight Predictions and High Investment; and/or (b) Invalidation. It was hypothesized that the idiographic hypothesis (Lamiell, 1995), assessed for each participant individually, would be correct for at least 75% of the participants. Of the 121 participants who completed the ECM, 97 (80.17%) reported significant construct revision. Of those 95 participants who reported significant construct revision, 77 (79.38%) were rated as making tight predictions with high investment and/or experiencing invalidation, supporting the hypothesis. Of the 24 (19.83%) participants who reported minimal construct revision only six (25%) reported invalidation and eight Table 6.2 Category groupings of experience cycle methodology data. Phases

Groups

Anticipation phase Investment phase (Dis)confirmation phase Construct revision

(1) Tight prediction (1) High investment (1) Validation (1) Significant revision

(2) (2) (2) (2)

Loose prediction Low investment Invalidation Minimal revision

Experience Cycle Methodology Anticipation

Investment

Confirmation

141 Revision

Tight Prediction

High Investment

Disconfirmation (Invalidation)

Construct Revision

Loose Prediction

Low Investment

Confirmation (Validation)

No Construct Revision

Figure 6.1 The Construct Revision Pathway. Note: The shaded phases and bold lines represent the “Construct Revision Pathway.” The dotted line represent possible pathways that are less likely to lead to construct revision.

(33.33%) reported tight predictions with high investment. Only two (0.083%) participants from the 24 participants in the minimal construct revision group reported tight predictions with high investment and invalidation. These results support the hypothesis that tight predictions with high investment and/or invalidation are likely to have occurred if construct revision has occurred. We refer to the pathway of tight predictions, high investment and invalidation as the “construct revision pathway.” This pathway is illustrated in Figure 6.1. In summary, the ECM although essentially a qualitative procedure can be coded into quantitative data. These results demonstrate empirical relationships between phases of the experience cycle, with relevance to the theoretical question so important to personal construct psychology; what leads to construct change? Tight predictions and personal involvement or invalidation appear to lead to construct change. The ECM provides the opportunity to relate qualitative information and establish quantitative relationships in an idiographic manner (Lamiell, 1995). That is, the above hypotheses were applied 121 times to each individual rather than nomothetically to group-based data. This idiographic form of hypothesis and statistical procedure is also more consistent with the individual focus of personal construct psychology.

Future Directions for the Experience Cycle Methodology Unlike criteria to assess the quality of quantitative analyses including reliability and validity, equivalent criteria for qualitative analyses have not been well established (Kirk and Miller, 1986; Nagy and Viney, 1994;

142

Personal Construct Methodology

Viney and Nagy, 2005). Such criteria are seen as “safeguards” to ensure rigor in analysis. Guba and Lincoln (1989; Lincoln and Guba, 1985) have, however, described four useful criteria for assessing qualitative analyses: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Consistent with similar criteria from Miles and Huberman (1994) we add a fifth criteria entitled utility. Evaluation of the ECM using these criteria is beyond the scope of this chapter. For such an evaluation see Oades and Viney (1998). 1. Future use of the ECM could better involve participants in the research design (Reason and Heron, 1995; Viney, 1988). Moreover, more feedback from the ECM to participants is necessary and conversely feedback to the researcher on whether the participants found the research empowering. Clearer aims of what to do with the findings would assist in meeting the utility criteria. 2. As Boulton (1994) asserts, dissatisfaction with questionnaires has led to increased interest in diary methods as a means of collecting information, particularly with populations that are hard to reach. Hence, the ECM would be usefully connected with a diary methodology. Information could be recorded in the ECM format within diaries closer to when events occur. This is also likely to increase reliability and validity of information. 3. In the examples given the ECM was used retrospectively, stories about events in the past. The ECM could be used prospectively. For example, adolescents could record their predictions about what they believe will occur next Saturday night, and then record what happens and if this changes their construing. The experience cycle methodology in a diary format would help persons articulate tighter predictions and also make sense of their experience. In other words it would assist persons to become “better scientists” and closer to optimal functioning persons in Kellyan terms (Winter, 1992). 4. A final potential development of the ECM is the improved operationalization of two areas in particular; investment and construct revision. In terms of investment, Walker et al. (1999) describe how the concept of investment may be similar to Hinkle’s (1965) notion of potential implicative invalidation. The greater the investment, the greater the potential invalidation. This is a useful avenue to quantify investment. In terms of construct revision, the ECM pro forma illustrated in Table 6.1, provides a measure of construct revision that is expressed verbally.

Experience Cycle Methodology

143

Future developments of the ECM need to pay attention to operationalizing and quantifying levels of construct change.

Conclusion In this chapter we described Kelly’s (1970) experience cycle as the basis of this qualitative methodology. We outlined five principles in the development of the Experience Cycle Methodology (ECM). Three examples from “Dana,” “Jono” and “Jade” were provided as illustrations of the products of the new methodology. We then discussed the quantitative use of the ECM and provided empirical support for the connection between tighter predictions/investment and construct change, and invalidation and construct change. This was referred to as the “construct revision pathway.” Four recommendations were made to improve and develop the ECM including: (a) increased involvement of participants to increase validity and utility, (b) linking the ECM with a diary methodology (c) using ECM prospectively rather than retrospectively and (d) improving the operationalization of investment and construct revision.

Acknowledgments This research that involved, in part, the development of the experience cycle methodology was funded by an NH and MRC Scholarship to the first author. We would also like to thank the 121 adolescents who described their experiences. The help from the numerous people involved from: the Department of Juvenile Justice, NSW, Australia; Smiths Hill High School, Wollongong, NSW, Australia; Wollongong High School, NSW, Australia and Campus East, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia was essential. Great thanks go to Rayomand Pestonji for his tireless transcription skills. Final thanks to Alison Hemsley for her ratings of the experience cycle categories, editing of this manuscript and ongoing emotional support to the first author.

References Allport, G. (1937) Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, Henry Holt, New York. Balnaves, M., Caputi, P. and Oades, L. (2000) A theory of social action: Why personal construct theory needs a superpattern corollary. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 13(2), 117–134.

144

Personal Construct Methodology

Boulton, M. (1994) The methodological imagination, in Challenge and Innovation: Methodological Advances in Social Research on HIV/AIDS (ed. M. Boulton), Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 1–22. Butt, T. (1996) PCP: Cognitive or social psychology? in Empirical Constructivism in Europe: The Personal Construct Approach (eds J. W. Scheer and A. Catina), Psychsozial-Verlag, Geiseen. Cohen, J. (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. Cox, L.M. and Lyddon, W.J. (1997) Constructivist conceptions of self: A discussion of emerging identity constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 10(3), 201–220. Filstead, W.J. (1979) Qualitative methods: A needed perspective in evaluation research, in Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research (eds T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt), Sage, Beverly Hills. Guba, E.G., and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park. Guidano, V.F. (1991) The Self in Process: Toward a Post-Rationalist Cognitive Therapy, Guilford, New York. Harre, R. and Gillett, G. (1994) The Discursive Mind, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Hinkle, D.N. (1965) The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications. PhD thesis. Ohio State University. Jick, T. D. (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611. Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York. Kelly, G.A. (1970) A brief introduction to personal construct theory, in Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (ed. D. Bannister), Academic Press, London. Kirk, J. and Miller, M.L. (1986) Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park. Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lamiell, J.T. (1995) Rethinking the role of quantitative methods in psychology, in Rethinking Methods in Psychology (eds J. A Smith, R. Harre and L. Van Langenhove), Sage, London, pp. 143–161. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park. Mair, M. (1989) Kelly, Bannister, and a story-telling psychology. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 1–14. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Mischler, E.G. (1986) The analysis of interviewer-narratives, in Narrative Psychology: The Storied Nature of Human Conduct (ed. T. R. Sarbin), Praeger, Westport CT, pp. 233–255.

Experience Cycle Methodology

145

Nagy, S. and Viney, L.L. (1994) Qualitative research methods and constructivist psychology. 29th Annual Australian Psychological Society Conference, Wollongong, NSW. Neimeyer, G.J. (ed.) (1993) Constructivist Assessment: A Casebook, Sage, Newbury Park. Oades, L.G. (1999) A personal construct model of adolescent risk-taking. PhD Thesis. Department of Psychology, NSW, Australia. Oades, L.G. (2000) Experience cycle methodology, in Developing Adult Learners: Strategies for Teachers and Trainers (eds K. Taylor, C. Marienau, and C. Fiddler), Jossey-Bass, New York. Oades, L.G. and Viney, L.L. (1997) Truth and Dare: Towards a personal construct model of adolescent risk-taking. XIIth International Congress of Personal Construct Psychology, July, Seattle, USA. Oades, L.G. and Viney, L.L. (1998) Experience Cycle Methodology: A new qualitative methodology from personal construct psychology. Eighth Australasian Personal Construct Psychology Conference, July, Brisbane, Australia. Oades, L.G. and Viney, L.L. (1999) Experience Cycle Methodology: A new method for personal construct psychologists? XIIIth International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology, Berlin, July 26. Oades, L.G. and Viney, L.L. (2000) Experience Cycle Methodology: A new method for personal construct psychologists? in The Person in Society: Challenges to a Constructive Theory (ed. J. W. Scheer), Psychosozial Verlag, Giessen, pp. 160–173. Perreault, W.D. and Leigh, L.E. (1989) Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgements. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 135–158. Reason, P. and Heron, J. (1995). Co-operative inquiry, in Rethinking Methods in Psychology (eds J. A Smith, R. Harre, and L. Van Langenhove), Sage, London, pp. 122–142. Smith, J.A. (1995a) Repertory grids: An interactive, case-study perspective, in Rethinking Methods in Psychology (eds J. A Smith, R. Harre and L. Van Langenhove), Sage, London, pp. 162–177. Smith, J.A. (1995b) Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis, in Rethinking Methods in Psychology (eds J. A Smith, R. Harre and L. Van Langenhove), Sage, London, pp. 9–26. Tschudi, F. (1977) Loaded and honest questions: a construct theory view of symptoms and therapy, in New Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (ed. D Bannister), Academic Press, London. Viney, L.L. (1988) Which data-collection methods are appropriate for a constructivist psychology? International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 191–203. Viney, L.L. (1993) Life Stories: Personal Construct Therapy with the Elderly, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester.

146

Personal Construct Methodology

Viney, L. L. and Nagy, S. (2005) Qualitative methods in personal construct research: What criteria to use?, in the Abstracts of the 11th Australasian Conference on Personal Construct Psychology, July 8–10, 2004, Melbourne, Victoria. Australian Journal of Psychology: Combined Abstracts of 2005 Australian Psychology Conference, 57 (Supplement), 1–6. Viney, L.L. and Oades, L. (1998) The use of conceptual models in personal construct psychology research. Eighth Australasian Personal Construct Psychology Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Vogel, D. (1994) Narrative perspectives in theory and therapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 7(4), Oct–Dec, 243–261. doi: 10.1080/10720539408405233. Walker, B.M, Oades, L.G, Caputi, P., et al. (1999) Revisiting Kelly’s concept of validation. XIIIth International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology, July, Berlin, Germany. Windelband, W. (1904) Geschichte und Naturwissenchaft, 3rd edn, Heitz, Strasburg (originally published in 1894). Winter, D.A. (1992) Personal Construct Psychology in Clinical Practice: Theory, Research and Applications, Routledge, New York.

Part III

Quantitative Approaches: Exploring Process

7

An Introduction to Grid-based Methods Peter Caputi

Preamble In 1961, George Kelly delivered a paper titled “A mathematical approach to psychology” to the Moscow Psychological Society (cited in Maher, 1988). In this paper Kelly argued that the concept of a personal construct (a concept that is central in his theory) could be viewed as a mathematical entity. He argued that people dealt with the events and experiences in their world through a system of “dichotomous differentiating and integrating” units or personal constructs (cited in Maher, 1988, p. 104). It is this bipolar feature of constructs that provides them with their mathematical nature. Moreover, Kelly argued that these discriminating and integrating dichotomies are the fundamental components of a personal psychological geometry. Kelly’s use of the term “geometry” and his position on the mathematical “qualities” of personal constructs is deliberate. He believed that the complexities and subtleties of these personal psychological geometries could be “captured” and investigated in some systematic way. To meet this aim, Kelly developed the role construct repertory test, a technique that evolved into the repertory grid, as it is now known. This chapter serves as an introduction to the repertory grid and other grid-based methods that have emerged in the Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) literature. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of a repertory grid. It then describes the various forms of grids and response scales associated with various grid forms or types and concludes with a section on some considerations for analyses of grid forms. Finally, this chapter is intended to provide an introduction to grid-based Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

150

Personal Construct Methodology

methods from the PCP literature; there are some excellent texts (see Fransella, Bell, and Bannister, 2004; Jankowicz, 2003 in particular) that present as easy to read but comprehensive accounts of repertory grids and related techniques. Readers are encouraged to review these texts.

What is a Repertory Grid? Is it possible to investigate a person’s psychological geometry, as Kelly put it? Is there a way of mapping this highly personalized landscape that is defined by our psychological geometry? This landscape is characterized by the components that “make up” the repertory gird – elements and constructs. In attempting to map this landscape, Kelly borrowed from the methods proposed by Vygotsky. In the paper “A mathematical approach to psychology,” Kelly (1961, cited in Maher, 1988) draws our attention to a method employed by Vygotsky in which a person is provided with a series of wooden blocks. The participant is asked to arrange the blocks in terms of certain characteristics of the block such as color and size. The experimenter could then observe the number and type of spontaneously generated categories. It was this feature of the Vygotskian experiment that Kelly focused on, namely, “the observation of what categories the subject spontaneously employs” (cited in Maher, 1988, p. 106). The procedure for generating a repertory grid is not unlike a structured interview and builds on the Vygotskian experiment. An important step in the procedure involves eliciting elements (those things such as people, objects or events that we use constructs to make sense of) from a respondent. In Kelly’s Role Construct Repertory Grid, the elements were defined in terms of the roles people play in one’s life, such as “mother” or “best friend.” However, elements need not be restricted to just people. For example, a social marketer might ask a group of women to consider the ways in which various perfumes or colognes might be categorized. Importantly, elements do not stand in isolation from the constructs that are used to make sense of them. Bell (1990) highlights the important role that elements play in the definition of grids and, consequently, the interpretation of grid data. He distinguishes between fixed elements (a specific set of elements that the investigator is interested in) and sampled elements (a sample of elements from a population of possible things). He argues that the choice of fixed elements or sampled elements depends on the purpose of

An Introduction to Grid-based Methods

151

the grid. For example, if a grid was to be used in market research then the products of interest would be fixed elements. Importantly, these elements are framed within a particular context and so must be interpreted within that context. Imagine then if we asked someone to sort people he or she knows instead of a set of blocks of differing colors, shapes and sizes as Vygotsky had asked of his participants. We might ask this person, for example, to sort people by noting how some people are similar yet different from others. Specifically, we might ask our participant to consider three people who are significant in his or her life, and how two of the people are similar yet different from the third. The dimension or concept that is used to make this discrimination is a construct. An example might be that two people are described as similar in that they are both very creative but different from a third person who is described as very practical. The construct employed by the participant then, is “Creative vs. Practical” which reflects at least one way the participant interprets/understands people. This process can then be repeated using a different group of three people, yielding different constructs. Those familiar with Personal Construct based methodologies would know that this process of eliciting constructs is known as triadic elicitation. Constructs represent ways in which our respondent understands or “makes sense” of the people he or she has chosen in our example. There are various methods of eliciting constructs including laddering and self-characterization (see Chapters 3 and 5). Epting, Probert, and Pittman (1993) present a good review of monadic and dyadic procedures where respondents are asked to consider two elements (dyadic) at a time or one element (monadic) at a time. However, the exploration of a person’s psychological landscape can go beyond just identifying key landmarks such as constructs and elements. Kelly posited that elements and constructs are related to one another in some ways in a person’s psychological geometry. It is the relationships between constructs and elements that are captured or represented in a repertory grid. In the simplest case, an element can be associated with a particular pole of a bipolar construct. For instance, the construct “free-spirited vs conservative” might be applied to distinguish three people, say, Bob, Mary, and Patrick. I might see Mary as “free-spirited” while Bob and Patrick are “conservative.” This relationship can be represented mathematically by assigning 1 to the elements Bob and Patrick because they deemed to be similar, and 0 to Mary because she is seen as different to Bob and Patrick. Furthermore, it is possible to represent such relationships between elements

152

Personal Construct Methodology

Table 7.1 An example of a binary repertory grid.

Free-spirited Loves sport Enjoys classical music

Mary

Bob

Patrick

0 1 1

1 0 1

1 1 0

Conservative Hates sports Enjoys modern music

and constructs in the form of a grid (a binary grid in this case). Table 7.1 depicts such a grid. Representations such as those depicted in Table 7.1 represent what Kelly (1955/1991) would refer to as a repertory grid. Kelly theorized that at any one time a person uses a finite number of personal constructs, although these constructs are open to revision and new constructs can be included in the array. These constructs do not sit in isolation, but rather are related to each other in a system or systems of constructs. It follows that the elements discriminated by or associated with particular constructs are also important features of these systems. The implication then, is the potential or ability to “use” or apply constructs systems which suggests that both constructs and the elements associated with those constructs are fixed multidimensionally. This multidimensional “terrain” is the personal psychological geometry alluded to earlier in this chapter – a psychological hyperspace. The repertory grid attempts to capture a sample of regions of this hyperspace.

Response Formats Mathematically, a repertory grid is a two-dimensional array (or matrix) with constructs represented as rows (one dimension) and elements as columns (the second dimension). Numerical values in the cells of the array depict the relationship between an element and a construct. That is, the value is obtained by using a particular response scale, and that value then reflects the nature of relationship between an element and a construct. Three response formats can be used when a person completes grids; a binary response format, a rank order response format and a rating response format. A respondent could be asked to consider a construct, say “freespirited-conservative” as in Table 7.1. The respondent then considers

An Introduction to Grid-based Methods

153

whether a particular element (say Bob in Table 7.1) possesses the characteristic expressed by the construct that he or she deems to be similar among the other elements. In the case of the example in Table 7.1, Bob and Patrick are deemed to be “Conservative,” and so a tick or a 1 will be placed in the corresponding column of the grid to indicate this relation. The grid is said to be binary since only 0 s and 1 s are used to fill the cells of the grid. A second way to examine the way elements relate to constructs is to rank order a set of elements in terms of each construct. For example, an individual may be asked to rank order a set of elements (say, a set of people) in terms of who is most successful to the person and who is least successful. The grid generated using this procedure in known as a rank order grid. Consider our previous example involving Mary, Bob, and Patrick. The respondent is asked to rank order these people with reference to the degree to which they are more or less conservative, love sport, and enjoy classical music. A rank of 1 indicates that the element is ranked highest on the designated pole of the construct. Table 7.2 presents the results of such rank ordering of elements. A third way to examine the way elements and constructs are related is to ask a person to use a rating scale to indicate the extent to which elements are more like one pole of a construct than the other pole. For example, a person may be asked use a 5-point scale, where a rating of “1” is most like the left hand pole, “good,” and “5” is most like the right-hand pole of the construct, “bad” to rate the construct “good-bad.” He or she may give a rating of “2” to the element “John” indicating the extent to which “John” is perceived to be a good person. If we continue with our example involving Mary, Bob, and Patrick, and assume that an individual has rated each person using a 5-point scale where 1 is most like the left-hand pole and 5 most like the right-hand pole, then the result of such an exercise might appear as the grid in Table 7.3. In summary, then, three forms of response scales are commonly used to elicit numerical information about the relationship between elements

Table 7.2 An example of a rank order repertory grid.

Free-spirited  Loves sport  Enjoys classical music

Mary

Bob

Patrick

3 1 1

2 3 2

1 2 3

Conservative Hates sports Enjoys modern music

154

Personal Construct Methodology

Table 7.3 An example of a rating repertory grid.

Free-spirited Loves sport Enjoys classical music

Mary

Bob

Patrick

1 1 1

5 5 2

5 3 4

Conservative Hates sports Enjoys modern music

and constructs in a grid. These response formats then lead to three possible types of grids, (i) binary grids, (ii) rank order grids and (iii) rating grids.

Forms of grids I have argued that repertory grids can be conceptualized as two-dimensional arrays that allow us to capture the relationship between a set of elements and a set of constructs – that is, the two dimensions of the array result in an element-construct comparison. However, repertory grids are just one form of grid identified in the Personal Construct Psychology literature. Grid forms can be distinguished in terms of whether dimensions (rows and columns) of the array are the same or different (Walker and Winter, 2007). With repertory grids, the dimensions are different, and as noted, the resultant grid is an element-construct comparison. The dimensions of a grid can be both elements, resulting in an element-element grid, or both constructs, resulting in a construct-construct grid (Walker and Winter, 2007). The Dependency Grid (see Walker, Ramsay, and Bell, 1988) and the Implication Grid (Hinkle, 1965) are instances of same set comparison grids. Alternatively, the taxonomy developed by Coombs (1964) can be used to distinguish grids (Bell, 1987). This taxonomy is not dissimilar to that presented by Walker and Winter (1997) as described in the previous paragraph. Coombs (1964) distinguished between one and two set data matrices. A one set data matrix represents the relation (say, similarity for example) between members of one group of objects (for example, constructs). A two set data matrix represents the relation between members of one group of objects (say, constructs) with members of a second group of objects (say, elements). Element-element grids and construct-construct grids are examples of one set data matrices, while element-construct grids are examples of two set data matrices. The Dependency Grid, or Situational Resources Repertory Tests (Kelly, 1955/1991) is an example of an element-construct grid. Winter (1992)

An Introduction to Grid-based Methods

155

notes that in this procedure, a person is asked to list situations that she or he might find challenging or difficult. An example of such a situation might be “a time when I felt down and out or depressed.” In addition, the person is asked to list important or significant people or resources in their life. The person is then asked to consider each situation in turn and indicate (usually using a tick) which of the listed people and/or resources he or she would turn to for help in that situation. The grid that results from this procedure is the Dependency Grid. The salient feature of this grid is that it provides an indication of the degree to which people and resources are dispersed or undispersed across the situations. Walker et al. 1988 and Bell (2001) have provided methods for analyzing dependency grids. Kelly’s (1955) Organization Corollary posits that constructs (more specifically construct poles) are related ordinally to each other. Some construct poles imply or are implied by other poles; some construct poles subsume other construct poles, so that construct poles are superordinate to those they subsume. In fact, Hinkle (1965) argued that these implicative relations were defining characteristics of constructs. Furthermore, Hinkle wished to explore directly how constructs are organized hierarchically, since these relationships are not directly observable in repertory grids. He developed the implication grid as a means of representing this feature of construct systems. The implication grid is an example of a constructconstruct grid. Implication grids are used to explore the implicative relations between either (i) construct poles, or (ii) constructs as whole units. In the former case, a person is given a set of, says n, construct poles and asked in turn whether one pole implies the remaining n - 1 poles. This step is repeated with the second pole until every construct pole has been considered with every other construct pole. With the latter case, the construct as a whole is considered, and the person is asked if a change on one construct implies a change in the remaining constructs. For both cases, the respondent may report the implicative relation in two ways, either indicating the presence or absence of an implication relation or the extent to which the relation is present using a rating scale Hinkle (1965) also developed the resistance to change grid. The procedure for the resistance to change grid is similar to Hinkle’s original implication grid methodology. For a given set of constructs, each construct is paired with each other construct. Respondents are asked to nominate the preferred poles of constructs in each pairing. For example, Sally may choose two constructs, say “introverted-extroverted” and “prefers red wine-prefers

156

Personal Construct Methodology

white wine.” When asked which pole of these constructs Sally may say that she prefers to be “happy” and “prefers red wine.” She is then asked to imagine changing from the preferred pole to the non-preferred side of each construct, and if she had to change from the preferred pole on only one of the constructs, which one would she choose to change. Resistance to change is identified as a tick in the appropriate cell of the grid. The degree of resistance to change for a construct can be determined by counting the number of times the participant preferred not to shift on that particular construct. A grid user may be interested in administering a grid on more than one occasion or to more than one individual. Therefore, grids may be three dimensional in form with replication being the third dimension. Such grids are also referred to as multiple grids in the personal construct literature. In describing multiple grids, Bell (1999) notes that at least common elements or constructs are required to ensure replication. Bell notes that there are two ways to ensure that you have common elements or constructs. First, a grid user can supply elements or constructs, that is, elements or constructs can be selected or specified prior to administering the grid. Second, Bell remarks that the grid user can assume commonality by classifying elements or constructs either before or after administering a grid. An example of the former would be the use of role titles such as “mother” or “father” as Kelly used in the role construct repertory test (Bell, 1999).

A Consideration for Analysis In Chapter 8 of this book, Caputi, Bell, and Hennessy discuss new and traditional approaches to analysing grid data. As a precursor to that chapter it may be useful to remind the reader of an important analytical issue that grid users may encounter. An initial but important observation one can make about data obtained from a grid elicitation is that (in most instances1) there are both qualitative and quantitative data. Moreover, a grid provides the user with a unique opportunity to explore the relationship between the results of qualitative and quantitative analyses.

1

These cases refer to instances where constructs are elicited by the respondent and not supplied by the grid user.

An Introduction to Grid-based Methods

157

In many instances, grid users will elicit constructs as part of generating a grid. Most of the time, grid users will examine how individuals have responded to constructs across the various elements in the grid. Summary statistics, such as means and standard deviations can be calculated for these constructs, and these statistics provide useful information for interpreting how respondents view these constructs. However, we should not forget that as part of the repertory grid procedure, we elicit constructs from a respondent. These elicited constructs are rich data that can be analyzed qualitatively. There are approaches to analysing qualitative aspects of grid data. For instance, Feixas, Geldschlager, and Neimeyer (2002) have provided a categorization scheme for constructs elicited from repertory grids. This taxonomy, known as the Classification System for Personal Constructs, allows users to classify constructs into 45 content categories that belong to six broad areas (moral, emotional, relational, personal, intellectual and values/interest) and two supplementary areas (existential and concrete descriptors). For example, the categories good-bad, altruist-egoist and humble-proud are categories of the area moral. Assume the construct “Caring – Selfish” is elicited as part of the grid methodology. It can be classified as belonging to the content category altruist-egoist – this category falls within broader classification of moral.

Conclusion Grids come in various forms and, are widely used by personal construct researchers. This chapter serves as a brief introduction to grid based methods. It is hoped that this chapter will encourage readers, particularly, those readers new to constructivist methods, to explore the possibility of using grid methodology in their research or private practice.

References Bell, R.C. (1987) G-Pack – version 3.0; a computer program for the elicitation and analysis of repertory grids. Manual. University of Melbourne., Melbourne. Bell, R.C. (1990) Analytic issues in the use of the repertory grid technique, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 1 (eds G. J. Neimeyer and R. A. Neimeyer), JAI Press, New York.

158

Personal Construct Methodology

Bell, R.C. (1999) GRIDSCAL: A program for analysing the data of multiple repertory grids (computer software and manual), R.C. Bell, Melbourne. Bell, R.C. (2001) Some new measures of the dispersion of a dependency in a situation-resource grid. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 303–311. Coombs, C.H. (1964) A Theory of Data, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Epting, F.R., Probert, J.S., and Pittman, S.D. (1993) Alternative strategies for construct elicitation: experimenting with experience. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 6, 79–98. Feixas, G., Geldschlager, H., and Neimeyer, R.A. (2002) Content analysis of personal constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 1–20. Fransella, F., Bell, R., and Bannister, D. (2004) A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Hinkle, D.N. (1965) The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of implications. PhD thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Jankowicz, D. (2003) The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York (reprinted by Routledge, London). Kelly, G.A. (1969) A mathematical approach to psychology, in Clinical Psychology and Personality: the Selected Papers of George Kelly (ed. B. Maher), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Maher, B. (ed.) (1969) Clinical Psychology and Personality: The Collected Papers of George Kelly, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Walker, B.M., Ramsay, F.L., and Bell, R.C. (1988) Dispersed and undispersed dependency. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 63–80. Walker, B.M. and Winter, D.A. (2007) The elaboration of personal construct psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 453–477. Winter, D.A. (1992) Personal Construct Psychology in Clinical Practice: Theory, Research and Implications, Routledge, London.

8

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches Peter Caputi, Richard Bell, and Desley Hennessy While everyone knows the Repertory Grid made its debut in the first volume of Kelly’s 1955 two-volume The Psychology of Personal Constructs (Kelly, 1955/1991), it is probably not so well known that Kelly also presented a method of analysis of grid data in that volume. He referred to it as a form of “factor analysis,” and termed it a “nonparametric solution to the problem” which “gives essentially the same answer that conventional factorial methods give and in such a small fraction of the time that the method is quite feasible for clinical use.” This method was subsequently programmed for a computer as early as 1962 but a published version did not emerge until 1986 in the UK (Potter and Coshall, 1986). However, the earliest application of factor analysis was that of Levy and Dugan (1956). They also introduced the notion of using ratings to locate elements on constructs (and thus simplify the calculation of correlations for factor analysis) and showed rotated factor loadings for constructs. At the same time a tradition of using indices to summarize grids was started with Bieri’s cognitive complexity-simplicity index (Bieri, 1955). The summary index tradition has continued in North America to this day, while the representation tradition has developed in the UK and Europe. In this chapter, we review traditional summary indices and describe recent developments in measuring the concepts of conflict and cognitive complexity. We also review ways traditional and new approaches to representing grid data.

Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

160

Personal Construct Methodology

Traditional Summary Indices There are summary measures to cover almost any description of a person’s thinking or construing. Many measures, including intensity, cognitive complexity, saturation, extremity, ordination (see Landfield and Cannell, 1988), articulation, integration and conflict have been reviewed by Fransella, Bell, and Bannister (2004, Ch. 5). Most of these are derived from a transformation or decomposition of a grid. For example, Bannister’s (1960) measure of intensity, the Maklouf-Norris, Jones, and Norris (1970) measure of articulation, and Slade and Sheehan’s (1979) measure of conflict are all derived from construct intercorrelations; whereas Smith and Leach’s (1972) index of cognitive complexity is derived from a cluster analysis and the Maklouf-Norris and Norris (1972) measure of Self–Other integration is derived from a spatial representation of elements. Other measures, such as Bell and Keen’s (1980) index of cognitive complexity are derived directly from the grid itself. Much of the work with these indices is isolated and lacks convergent and divergent validity. Bavelas, Chan, and Guthrie (1976) considered the independence of Bieri’s construct cognitive complexity, a measure of constellatoriness (effectively the element counterpart of Bieri’s measure) and Jones’s (1961) measure of identification (self–other distance as in Mahklouf-Norris and Norris measure) and found them all highly related. Soldz and Soldz (1989) found Landfield’s FIC (Functionally Independent Constructs) index closely related to the number of midpoint ratings, while several studies have shown intensity and cognitive complexity as defined by the relative size of the first principal component to be related. However, Bell (2004a) showed the latter measure to be better at distinguishing variation in correlation size. So, should we use these indices? And, if so, how? In research settings it is often useful to have a summary measure to act as a variable that predicts or is predicted. This becomes essential when the study is such that each grid is particular to the individual completing the grid. Neither elements nor constructs are necessarily the same across individuals. In such cases the only common thing will be summary measures. What the above research shows, however, is that we ought not to assume that indices with different names necessarily behave independently. In individual consultation settings, there may be less need for a summary measure. And here another problem arises. In the group setting it is

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches

161

variation in the indices’ values across respondents that is of interest and there is generally no need for a cutting score to be defined. In individual cases such a criterion might be desirable. Is my client construing in a cognitively complex fashion or not? Most work in this area has been carried out with self-other distances following on from the Makhlouf-Norris and Jones (1971) measure of Self–Other integration. Slater (1977) and Schoeneich and Klapp (1998) have attempted to find appropriate cutting scores by comparison with random data grids. In other individual consultation settings where grids are used to assess changes over time or context, the indices can be readily compared. Here we considered three grids. These grids were elicited from participants in Hennessy’s PhD research which investigated people’s constructions of tattoos. Participant 14 (Grid 14) was a 52-year-old male participant, participant 22 (Grid 22) was a 21-year-old female and participant 60 (Grid 60) was a 64-year-old male. The Self-Image Profile (SIP) (Adults) (Butler and Glasson, 2004) was used to elicit poles for 12 constructs. These poles represented the various subscales of the SIP, as reported in the SIP manual. Contrast poles for each construct were obtained by asking participants to report the “opposite” of the pole supplied from the SIP. Grids for participants 14, 22 and 60 are presented in the Appendix to this chapter. Table 8.1 presents construct summary indices for grids 14, 22, and 60. We would assume that grid 60 is the most complex with respect to construct relationships [lowest on all three indices] and grid 22 is the most cognitively simple. Notice however that grids 14 and 60 are more alike when the construct intraclass correlation is considered. This is because one construct in grid 14, “hard-working” is in reverse alignment to the other constructs but it is not in the other two grids. The intraclass correlation takes account of this reversal, the other statistics do not. If we reverse this construct for grid 14, the construct intraclass correlation becomes 0.39 and is similarly aligned with the other statistics. Table 8.1 Construct summary statistics for Grids 14, 22, and 60. Statistic Construct intraclass correlation Construct average (root-mean-squared (RMS)) correlation Percentage of variance accounted for by first factor

Grid 14

Grid 22

Grid 60

0.29 0.47

0.40 0.49

0.25 0.40

47.0

50.2

37.0

162

Personal Construct Methodology

Traditional Representations of Grids There are two primary methods for representing relationships in repertory grid data: cluster analysis, which explicitly shows all links, and component type spatial maps which highlight major commonalities among constructs and elements. Both of these traditions began in the UK in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1964, Patrick Slater published The principal components of a repertory grid which referred to a mainframe Fortran computer program. Slater adapted this from some research he had been doing with the representation of personal preferences (Slater, 1960). The program’s development was sponsored through a British Medical Research Council (MRC) grant, which also provided a service whereby psychologists could send their grid data in and receive a printout of the analysis. In 1967, the program became known as INGRID, the acronym which defines a particular kind of analysis even today. By 1973 this service had analyzed 10 000 grids (Slater, 1976, p. 2) and in that year it was disbanded and the program distributed to a number of university computer centers. The cluster analysis tradition’s origins are less clear. The earliest reference is to a program by Thomas and Mendoza (1974), which gave an indication of how the clustering was carried out. A problem for both methods of grid representation is that there are different ways component analysis (through choice of scaling) and cluster analysis (through choice of both method and measure of association) can be carried out. Thomas and Mendoza indicated their clustering approach followed a method devised by McQuitty (1960). Much later Shaw (1980) indicated that the Shaw-Thomas approach used a single linkage method (equivalent to the McQuitty approach) on absolute or city-block distances. All reported usage of cluster analysis for grids seems to be unaware of which method has been used and the implications of the choice of method (for example: single linkage and complete linkage methods almost always give different structures).

Singular Value Decomposition (Slater’s Principal Component Analysis) Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) finds loadings for both rows and columns of a table of numbers and thus is a method that can be used to provide a joint spatial representation of the constructs and elements of a grid. All current computer programs for analysing repertory grid data have

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches

163

some version of this included. Where they differ is mostly to do with the prescaling of the grid. For Patrick Slater’s original INGRID program, this scaling involved removing construct means. For correspondence analysis, as implemented in the GRIDCOR program of Feixas and Cornejo (2002), this involved a complex rescaling by element and construct totals and ignoring the first component. Bell (2004b) compared a number of prescalings and found that either simply ignoring the first component or double centering by removing both element and construct means produced configurations that were independent of construct and element means. But no matter what scaling is used, there is always some ambiguity in the plotting of constructs in the representation. Figure 8.1 shows the construct loadings for Grid 14. We can see here two coordinates for each construct; one locates the construct on the vertical axis, the other on the horizontal axis. In the early graphical representations of Slater’s INGRID, constructs were shown as points on a circle encompassing the element points. This was a distortion in that it implied that constructs each accounted for the same amount of variance. If we square and sum the row coordinates of Figure 8.1 (giving the variance associated with each construct), we can see that this is not true. Another graphical device introduced by Slater was to put two points on the circle, diametrically opposed, to show the two construct poles. This convention is still used in some graphical representations that have at least abandoned the incorrect equality of the circular representation for constructs. But the coordinates in Figure 8.1 do not define two points, only one. So which pole is represented by that point?

Singular value decomposition loadings Constructs Point 1 Happy – Unhappy A 0.82 Patient – Impatient B 0.78 Caring – Uncaring C −0.26 Kind – Cruel D 1.16 Sense of humor – Boring E −0.79 Sociable – Difficult F −0.26 Friendly – Unfriendly G 1.02 Active – Lazy H −0.53 Confident – Scared I −0.02 Organised – Disorganised J −1.11 Hard working –Lazy K −0.03 Honest – Uncaring L −1.18

2 −0.06 1.00 0.32 −0.16 −0.06 0.15 −0.24 −0.57 0.03 −0.08 −2.07 0.57

Figure 8.1 Singular-value-decomposition loadings for constructs of Grid 14.

164

Personal Construct Methodology

Figure 8.2 Plot of singular-value-decomposition loadings for constructs of Grid 14.

Figure 8.2 shows the construct points of Figure 8.1 plotted. We can see that “positive” labels are on the left, and negative labels are on the right. Notice Lazy appears in two constructs, Active – Lazy and Hard-working – Lazy. What the diagram doesn’t show (as Table 8.2 does show) is that the Table 8.2 Correlations of Hardworking – Lazy with other constructs. Happy – Unhappy Patient – Impatient Caring – Uncaring Kind – Cruel Sense of humour – Boring Sociable – Difficult Friendly – Unfriendly Active – Lazy Confident – Scared Organised – Disorganized Honest –Uncaring


0.32
0.75
0.58
0.20
0.31
0.46
0.12 0.04
0.38
0.38
0.59

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches

165

Figure 8.3 Plot of singular-value-decomposition loadings for constructs of Grid 14 with Hard working – Lazy reversed.

two constructs are not correlated, and Hard-working – Lazy is actually negatively correlated with the other constructs, implying that for Hardworking – Lazy, Lazy is actually the preferred pole. If we reverse this construct so that it agrees (i.e., is positively correlated) with the other constructs, we change the location of the point – as shown in Figure 8.3. So, spatial diagrams from component analyses need to be carefully interpreted. To be confident in labeling construct points as one or other of the poles, a person needs to consider the data in the raw grid. First identify which element is closest to the construct point in the diagram, then look at the grid and find which pole of the construct is aligned with that element.

Cluster Analysis The other kind of traditional representation of element and construct relationships is cluster analysis. Figure 8.4 shows the traditional

166

Personal Construct Methodology

Figure 8.4 Single-linkage clustering of construct absolute (city-block) distances.

Thomas-Shaw clustering for our first grid. The clustering diagram is known as a dendogram. We can see caring and sociable are most alike as they are the first pair joined. Next is the pair sense of humor and active and at the same level, confident joins the caring and sociable pair. One drawback of using the absolute or city-block distances, is that there are many ties (that is, equivalent data values). The details shown under the dendogram indicate that there are two 6s, three 9s, and two 11s. If we change the measure of association to Euclidean distance (as in Figure 8.5) we see only one tied value. This makes for clearer distinctions in the dendogram. Both dendograms show another drawback of the single-linkage method. Constructs are gradually added to the cluster at the top. This does not help to identify the separate clusters. The method of complete linkage (shown in Figure 8.6) shows the constructs more clearly falling into three groups: caring to honest,

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches

167

Figure 8.5 Single-linkage clustering of construct Euclidean distances.

Figure 8.6 Complete-linkage clustering of construct Euclidean distances.

168

Personal Construct Methodology

happy to friendly, and sense of humor to hard-working. This method has also been shown to be more robust (Baker, 1974).

Newer Indices In recent times there have been some developments on the conventional front. In assessing cognitive complexity through factor approaches, Bell (2004a) showed the number of components to provide the clearest indication of a person’s cognitive complexity. The most valid methods for determining the number of components have been shown to be the Minimum Average Partial Correlation [MAP] test and comparisons with distributions of eigenvalues from equivalent random data sets. The MAP test for our three grids indicates 3 factors for grid 14, 1 factor for grid 22, and no factors for grid 60. This would suggest that grid 14 is complex, grid 22 is simple, and grid 60 has no real structure, that is, it is a fragmented grid. A way of calculating correlations among elements which is indifferent to the orientation of constructs has recently been devised (Bell, 2006). This allows for the kinds of complexity measures devised for constructs to be calculated for elements. Table 8.3 shows the element complexity. Grid 14 is clearly complex by all measures (low intraclass correlation, lowest correlation, and most factors), and grid 22 is likewise a grid with simply structured elements (highest intraclass correlation, high correlation, one factor), while grid 60 is complex by the intraclass criterion, reasonably complex by the number of factors (unlike the construct structure) and simple by the average correlation or first component percentage criteria. Another class of index, that which assesses “conflict” in a grid, has recently been revived. A measure of this concept was first proposed by Slade and Sheehan (1979). This was based on the product of signs of correlations Table 8.3 Element complexity indices. Statistic Element intraclass correlation Element average (root-mean-squared (RMS)) correlation Percentage of variance accounted for by first factor Number of element factors (MAP test)

Grid 14

Grid 22

Grid 60

0.09 0.39

0.21 0.52

0.08 0.52

36.3

56.2

56.0

3

1

2

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches

169

among triads of constructs. Problems were encountered with this (Winter, 1983) and it fell into disuse although Krauthauser, Bassler, and Portratz (1994) attempted to revive it with a modification. More recently two different approaches have been proposed. Feixas, Sa ul, and Sanchez (2000) used the location of actual and ideal self to categorize constructs. When actual and ideal were at the same pole, the construct was classified as “congruent”; when the two were at opposite poles, the construct was regarded as “discrepant.” When a congruent construct was positively correlated with a discrepant construct, Feixas et al. saw this as presenting the respondent with a “dilemma” that was conflictual. More recently Bell (2006) focused on the role of elements, this time any element, examining all pairs of constructs with respect to each element, defining “conflict” as occurring when elements were at different poles of constructs that were otherwise positively correlated. There are two problems with the approaches taken by Slade and Sheehan (1979) (and subsequent modification versions) and Feixas et al. (2000). The first problem is that both require the setting of a criterion for the level of correlation. (The Feixas et al. approach also requires another criterion for congruent and discrepant Self-Ideal constructs.) The second problem is that the levels of conflict found are very low. For the three grids considered here, no conflict was found for the Feixas et al. concept, and only one triad of imbalanced correlations was found in the other approach. Bell’s (2004c) approach uses the “triangular inequality” of distances (from element to the two constructs and between the two constructs) and does not require the setting of any criterion. It tends to give between 30% and 40% of “conflict” per grid, which seems to indicate a normal level of conflict. However when this conflict is apportioned among the elements, it has been found that some elements are more responsible for conflict than others. For example, in the first two of the three grids considered here, Self now if I had no tattoos was more associated with conflict than other elements, and in the third grid, Someone I know without a tattoo was a major source of conflict. While this looks promising, more work is needed for Bell’s approach to be used in any routine way.

New Configuration Approaches Traditional methods of analysing grid data such as factor analysis are based on the similarity between elements or constructs. The spatial

170

Personal Construct Methodology

representations produced by these techniques show the degree to which elements and constructs are similar to one another. However, similarity is not the only type of relation that one can assess between, say, constructs. Kelly (1955/1991)’s Organization Corollary explicitly states an ordinal relationship between constructs. Therefore, the exploration of ordinal relations in repertory grids would be appropriate from a theoretical position. Methods such as hierarchical classes analysis (De Boeck and Rosenberg, 1988) are available for obtaining representations of ordinal relations among constructs. In this section we discuss two configuration approaches for examining such relations – formal concept analysis, an approach that has been applied to the analysis of repertory grids but only infrequently so; and a new hierarchical modeling approach developed by Caputi (1997).

Formal concept analysis Formal concept analysis (Wille, 1982) is a mathematical technique that has its roots in pure mathematics. Fundamental to this analysis is the notion of a concept – a category which can be used to classify objects. Concepts are defined in terms of two components – objects that can be categorized in some way, and the attributes that are common to the objects, which can be grouped in some way (Wormuth and Becker, 2004). Amongst a group of acquaintances, we might say that Alan, John and Sandra are artistic and avant-garde. The objects (Alan, John, Sandra) share the attributes (artistic, avant-garde). We refer to the grouping ((Alan, John, Sandra), (artistic, avant-garde)) as a concept. Interestingly, there is a parallel between the notion of a concept in concept analysis and the definition of a construct in Personal Construct Theory. Objects in a concept can be seen as the elements and the attributes can be conceptualized as constructs. Additional similarities between formal concept analysis and Personal Construct Theory are discussed by Caputi and Hennessy (2008). Formal concept analysis has been applied to repertory grid data. For instance, Spangenberg and Wolff (1987) applied the approach to grid data elicited from a patient with anorexia. However, the technique has not received the popularity of other approaches such as cluster and factor analysis. The set of all possible concepts defined on a group of objects and attributes can be represented in tabular form and is not dissimilar to a repertory grid where the response scale is binary. A set of concepts forms a structure known as a complete partial order. The representation of these

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches

171

Figure 8.7 Concept lattice for Grid 14.

structures provides the underpinning of formal concept analysis. The program CONEXP
1.3 can be used to explore partial orders in repertory grid data (Yevtushenko, 2000). Figure 8.7 presents a concept lattice for Grid 14. In order to analyze the grid for this participant, it was necessary to convert it from a five-point Likert-type scale to a yes/no scale. Since a direct transformation was not possible, the threes had to be allocated to either “yes” or “no.” Rather than making an arbitrary decision, investigation of the resulting diagrams with three as “no” and three as “yes” showed that the concept map was simpler when three was coded as “no.” The positive (supplied) poles of the grid were entered as objects into CONEXP and the elements were entered as attributes.

172

Personal Construct Methodology

The resulting output shows how the supplied construct poles and the elements can be arranged in a hierarchy. The diagram shows that construct poles such as “honest,” “caring,” “sociable,” “kind” and “hard working” are superordinate to other constructs, such as “confident” and “patient.” Further, “friendly” and “sense of humor” are superordinate to “active,” which is superordinate to “organised.” As can be seen in Figure 8.7, “self ” and “hard working” are grouped together, as are “self others see” and “kind.” “Future self ” is seen as “active,” and “someone without a tattoo” is “patient.” Interestingly, this diagram shows “self as I’d like others to see me” and “ideal self ” as superordinate to the constructs “honest,” “sociable,” “caring,” “kind” and “hard working.”

Hierarchical modeling This approach generalizes a strategy for analysing implication grids developed by Caputi et al. (1990) to repertory grid data. Caputi et al. argued that implication grid data can best be represented as quasi-order relations. If we consider implication grid data to represent the relation between construct poles (see Chapter 7 for a description of implication grid data) then that relation is said to be a quasi-order if it has two important characteristics – reflexivity (a construct pole implies itself) and transitivity (if pole i implies pole j, and pole j implies pole k, then pole i will imply pole k). Underpinning Caputi et al.’s (1990) approach to fitting quasi-order relations to observed implication grid data was the construction of a proportional index (essentially a measure of the extent to which one construct pole is included in another). This index assesses the extent to which observed links in an implication grid participate in transitive triples, that is, construct poles that are transitively related. As a starting point, a representation of the data based on a proportional index can be constructed. Caputi et al. (1990) then proposed an algorithm for imposing greater transitivity on this starting model. (See Caputi et al. (1990) for a detailed description of the algorithm.) With bipolar implication grids each row provides information about the individual construct poles. A row profile in a repertory grid contains information about both poles of a construct. Caputi (1997) proposed a way of assessing hierarchical relations among construct poles using repertory grid data, and therefore opened up the possibility of applying the quasiorder modeling algorithm (Caputi et al., 1990) to repertory grid data. A crucial step is to “uncover” the implicative relations implicit in repertory

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches

173

grid data. If implication-like data can be obtained from a repertory grid then the hierarchical modeling strategy developed by Caputi et al. can be applied to those data. Let G be a repertory grid. An entry Gij indicates that element j is associated with or belongs to a pole of construct i. Each row of G contains information about element association to both poles of a construct. The extent to which an element belongs to a particular construct can be assessed by complement G c of Gij. For example, if an element is given a rating of 5 indicating it is most like the right-hand pole of a construct, the membership value of that element for the left hand pole is 1 (assuming a 5 point rating scale is adopted). We can construct a supermatrix G such that G ¼ [G, G c]. The row profiles of G indicate the extent to which an element belongs to or is most like a construct pole. A row profile i of G dominates or contains row profile j of G if Gij  Gjk for all k. Caputi (1997) defined an inclusion or implication relation Iij as follows: Iij ¼

P

fðG0 ik < G0 jk Þ \ ðG0 ik  Md Þg P 0 ðG ik  Md Þ

where Md is the midpoint of the rating scale adopted in the repertory grid. Iij measures the extent to which pole i is contained within pole j, or the extent of overlap between the two construct poles. The algorithm developed by Caputi et al. for implication grid data can now be applied to Iij. The model obtained after applying the proposed algorithm is presented in Table 8.4. The values in the off-diagonals represent what the strength of the implicative relations among construct poles modeled as quasi-orders and based on the repertory grid data. The data in Table 8.4 can also be represented visually by what is known as a Hasse diagram. A Hasse diagram is a simple graphical representation of order relation, in this case, a quasi-order. First we need to binarize the data using an arbitrary cutoff, such as .95. That is, only links with values .95 or greater will be represented in the diagram. The resultant binarized data are presented in Table 8.5. The links in Table 8.5 can now be represented as a Hasse diagram as shown in Figure 8.8. The Hasse diagram shows that the respondent views someone who is caring as also being happy, but someone who is caring might also be perceived as lazy. Recall that the Hasse diagram as defined by our arbitrary cut-off represents strong links between construct poles. That said, there is still evidence of hierarchy among the poles in the Hasse diagram.

Happy Patient Caring Kind Sense of humor Sociable Friendly Active Confident Organised Hard working Honest Unhappy Impatient Uncaring Cruel Boring Difficult Unfriendly Lazy Scared Disorganised Lazy Uncaring

0.7 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5

0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1

1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5

0.8 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Table 8.4 Model.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.5

0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

0.2 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.5

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.5

0.2 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.5

0.2 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2

0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2

0.7 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.7 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.5

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

0.3 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0

0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.3

1.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3

0.3 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.0

0.7 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5

0.6 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3

0.4 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3

0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.8

0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5

0.3 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.8

0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6

0.3 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7

0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.6

0.7 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5

0.3 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.8

0.8 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8

0.7 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5

0.5 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8

1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.7

0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5

0.7 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.8

0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5

0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5

0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.6

0.7 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5

0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.7

0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8

1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.5

0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.4 1.0

0.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5

0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7

174 Personal Construct Methodology

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches

175

lazy scared

difficult

unfriendly

lazy

boring

happy patient

kind

disorganised

caring sociable

Figure 8.8 Hasse diagram for Grid 14. Table 8.5 Binarized data. Happy Patient Caring Kind Sense of humor Sociable Friendly Active Confident Organised Hard working Honest Unhappy Impatient Uncaring Cruel Boring Difficult Unfriendly Lazy Scared Disorganised Lazy Uncaring

1 0 1 0 0

0 1 1 0 0

0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1 1

0 0 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

176

Personal Construct Methodology

Conclusion Undoubtedly, repertory grids will continue to be an important methodology in the “toolkit” of Personal Construct Psychology researchers. Debate surrounding the appropriateness and utility of procedures and techniques for analysing repertory grids will also continue. In this chapter, we have reviewed traditional approaches to grid analysis, revisited approaches that have received attention, and introduced a new way of representing structure in repertory grid data. In doing so, we hope to add to the ongoing discussion of approaches to analysing grid data.

References Baker, F.B. (1974) Stability of two hierarchical grouping techniques – case 1. Sensitivity to data errors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 440–445. Bannister, D. (1960) Conceptual structure in thought-disordered schizophrenics. Journal of Mental Science, 108, 1230–1249. Bavelas, J.B., Chan, A.S., and Guthrie, J.A. (1976) Reliability and validity of traits measured by Kelly’s Repertory Grid. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 8, 23–38. Bell, R.C. (1990) Analytic issues in the use of repertory grid technique, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol 1 (eds G. Neimeyer and R. A. Neimeyer), JAI Press, New York. Bell, R.C. (2004a) When is my grid cognitively complex and when is it simple? Some approaches to deciding. Personal Construct Theory and Practice, 1, 28–32. Bell, R.C. (2004b) The joint representation of constructs and elements in repertory grid data by component analysis: Slater’s Ingrid is not the best solution. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17, 147–152. Bell, R.C. (2004c) A new approach to measuring conflict or inconsistency in grids. Personal Construct Theory and Practice, 1, 53–59. Bell, R.C. (2006) A note on the correlation of elements in repertory grids: How to and why. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 19, 273–279. Bell, R.C. and Keen T.R. (1980) A statistical aid for the grid administrator. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 13, 143–150. Bieri, J. (1955) Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 263–268. Butler, R.J. and Glasson, S.L. (2004) The Self Image Profile for Adults, Harcourt Assessment, London.

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches

177

Caputi, P. (1997) Determining hierarchical relations among constructs in repertory grids. 12th International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology. July 9–12, 1997. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Caputi, P., Breiger, R.L. and Pattison, P.E. (1990) Analysing implication grids using hierarchical models. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 3, 77–90. Caputi, P. and Hennessy, D. (2008) Using formal concept analysis to analyse repertory grid data. Personal Construct Theory and Practice, 5, 165–173 (retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp08/caputi08.html, accessed May 29, 2011). De Boeck, P. and Rosenberg, S. (1988) Hierarchical classes: model and data analysis. Psychometrika, 53, 361–381. Feixas, G., and Cornejo, J.M. (2002) GRIDCOR: Correspondence analysis for grid data v.4.0. [Computer software] Barcelona: Authors. Feixas, G., Sa ul, L.A., and Sanchez, V. (2000) Detection and analysis of implicative dilemmas: implications for the therapy process, in The Person in Society: Challenges to a Constructivist Theory (ed. J. Scheer), Psychosozial-Verlag, Giessen, pp. 391–399. Fransella, F., Bell, R.C., and Bannnister, D. (2004) A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Jones, R.E. (1961) Identification in terms of personal constructs: reconciling a paradox in theory. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 276. Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York; (reprinted Routledge, London). Krauthauser, H., Bassler, M., and Potratz, B. (1994) A new approach to the identification of cognitive conflicts in the repertory grid: A nomothetic study. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 7, 283–299. Landfield, A.W. and Cannell, J.E. (1988) Ways of assessing functionally independent construction, meaningfulness, and construction in hierarchy, in Cognition and Personal Structure: Computer Access and Analysis (eds J. C. Mancuso and M. L. G. Shaw), Praeger, New York, pp. 67–90. Levy, L.H. and Dugan, R.D. (1956) Personal constructs and predictive behaviour. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 53, 54–58. McQuitty, L.L. (1960) Hierarchical syndrome analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 293–304. Makhlouf-Norris, F. and Jones, H.G. (1972) Conceptual distance indices as measures of alienation in obsessional neurosis. Psychological Medicine, 1, 381–387. Mahklouf-Norris, F., Jones, H.G., and Norris, H. (1970) Articulation of the conceptual structure in obsessional neurosis. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 264–274.

178

Personal Construct Methodology

Potter, R.B. and Coshall, J.T. (1986) Nonparametric factor analysis in urban geography: Method and validation. Urban Geography, 7, 515–529. Schoeneich, F. and Klapp, B.F. (1998) Standardization of inter-element distances in repertory grid technique and its consequences for psychological interpretation of self-identity plots: An empirical study. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 11, 49–58. Shaw, M.L.G (1980) On Becoming a Personal Scientist: Interactive Computer Elicitation of Personal Models of the World, Academic Press, London. Slade, P.D. and Sheehan M.J. (1979) The measurement of “conflict” in repertory grids. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 519–524. Slater, P. (1960) The analysis of personal preferences. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 13, 119–135. Slater, P. (1976) The measurement of intrapersonal space by grid technique. Volume 1 Explorations of intrapersonal space, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, London. Slater, P. (1977) The measurement of intrapersonal space by grid technique. Volume 2 Dimensions of intrapersonal space, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, London. Smith, S. and Leach, C. (1972). A hierarchical measure of cognitive complexity. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 561–568. Spangenberg, N. and Wolff, K.E. (1987) Conceptual grid evaluation. Classification and related methods of data analysis. First conference of the International Federation of Classification Societies, Aachen, Germany. Soldz, S., and Soldz, E. (1989) A difficulty with the Functionally Independent Construction measure of cognitive differentiation. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 315–322. Thomas, L.F. and Mendoza, S. (1974) Kelly-McQuitty: A Computer Programme for Use with an On-line Terminal, Centre for the Study of Human Learning, Brunei University. Wille, R. (1982) Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concepts, in Ordered Sets (ed. I. Rival), Dordrecht-Boston, Reidel. Winter, D.A. (1983) Logical inconsistency in construct relationships: Conflict or complexity? British Journal of Medical Psychology, 56, 79–87. Wormuth, B. and Becker, P. (2004) Introduction to formal concept analysis. 2nd International Conference of Formal Concept Analysis, 2004, Sydney Australia. Yevtushenko, S.A. (2000) System of Data Analysis “Concept Explorer.” (In Russian). Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence KII-2000, Russia, pp. 127–134.

Happy Patient Caring Kind Sense of humor Sociable Friendly Active Confident Organized Hard working Honest

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 1 1 2 1

2

1 2 1 2 2 2

2

ideal

2 3 2 2 2

self

Table A8.1 Grid 14.

2

2 1 1 2 2 1

2 2 1 3 2

future

1

1 2 1 1 3 1

2 1 1 2 2

like_ others

3

2 2 1 2 3 2

3 4 2 1 1

others_ see

1

3 3 2 2 3 3

5 4 3 4 3

before

1

4 3 1 2 4 2

4 4 3 4 4

now_ if_no

Appendix

2

2 1 2 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 3

wout tatt

3

2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 3

with tatt

4

3 2 3 2 2 2

4 4 3 3 3

conform

3

2 1 1 1 4 1

3 2 2 1 2

rebel

4

2 2 2 3 5 5

4 4 3 2 3

physical

Uncaring

Difficult Unfriendly Lazy Scared Disorganized Lazy

Unhappy Impatient Uncaring Cruel Boring

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches 179

Happy Patient Caring Kind Sense of humor Sociable Friendly Active Confident Organized Hard working Honest

2 3 2 2 2

1 2 1 2 2 2

2

6 7 8 9 10 11

12

ideal

1 2 3 4 5

self

Table A8.2 Grid 22.

2

2 2 1 1 2 1

2 2 2 2 2

future

2

2 1 1 2 2 1

2 2 1 3 2

like_ others

1

1 2 1 1 3 1

2 1 1 2 2

others_ see

3

2 2 1 2 3 2

3 4 2 1 1

before

1

3 3 2 2 3 3

5 4 3 4 3

now_ if_no

1

4 3 1 2 4 2

4 4 3 4 4

wout tatt

2

2 1 2 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 3

with tatt

3

2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 3

conform

4

3 2 3 2 2 2

4 4 3 3 3

rebel

3

2 1 1 1 4 1

3 2 2 1 2

physical

Deceitful

Antisocial Mean Apathetic Shy Messy Lazy

Depressed Stressed Unsympathetic Narcissistic Accountant

180 Personal Construct Methodology

Happy Patient Caring Kind Sense of humor Sociable Friendly Active Confident Organized Hard working Honest

3 3 2 2 2

1 2 2 2 2 2

2

6 7 8 9 10 11

12

ideal

1 2 3 4 5

self

Table A8.3 Grid 60.

2

1 2 2 2 2 2

3 1 2 2 2

future

2

1 3 4 4 2 3

3 4 2 2 2

like_ others

2

1 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2

others_ see

2

1 2 2 3 2 2

3 2 2 2 2

before

4

4 4 3 4 3 4

4 2 3 3 3

now_ if_no

2

1 2 2 2 2 3

3 3 2 2 2

wout tatt

1

5 5 2 5 2 2

3 2 2 2 4

with tatt

2

4 3 3 2 3 2

3 2 2 2 2

conform

3

1 3 3 3 3 2

3 3 3 2 2

rebel

2

1 1 3 2 2 3

2 4 2 3 2

physical

Untrustworthy

Solitary Introverted Passive Reserved Untidy Lazy

Morbid Impatient Dismissive Noncaring Serious

Analyzing Grids: New and Traditional Approaches 181

9

Computer-aided Constructivism Brian R. Gaines and Mildred L.G. Shaw Introduction George Kelly’s early background, wartime experience and continuing interest in engineering, cybernetics and mathematics is evident in the systemic foundations he developed for personal construct psychology (PCP) that make it simple and natural to model through computer technology. He saw technology as providing essential support for humanistic psychology, remarking in a paper on methodology in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology that: It would, in my opinion, be a serious mistake for psychologists who hope to raise man from the position of an unwitting subject in an experiment to a posture of greater dignity to abandon technology. The spirit of man is not enlarged by withholding his tools. Just as it took the technology of gunpowder and the printing press to turn humanism into something more than classicism, so now it requires an appropriate technology for humanistic psychology to realize its objectives. (Kelly, 1969a, p. 53)

Computers and related notions of automata, cybernetics and information processing had begun to play a role in psychological modeling in the 1950s (Quastler, 1955). Kelly was aware of this, noting in his book on PCP that: The practical task of reducing information to a form which can be handled by electronic computing machines has forced scientists to reconsider the mathematical structure of knowledge itself. (Kelly, 1955, pp. 63–64)

Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

184

Personal Construct Methodology

He was an invited commentator at the first conference on Computer Simulation of Personality, remarking that: There are two major ways in which I see a computer simulation program contributing to an experimental science of psychology. First, it can simulate the logic of a theoretical system and, with a series of inputs, explicate the theory and its implications in ways the original theoretician would take a lifetime to figure out on his own. The second contribution can be to the processing of data provided by a given subject. (Kelly, 1963, p. 227)

Kelly’s first anticipation was validated by the development of interactive computer programs simulating psychologists and their subjects. For example, Weizenbaum’s (1966) ELIZA program simulated the conversational interaction of a Rogerian therapist, by substituting phrases input by the user in the computer’s responses. Shaw’s (1978) PEGASUS program used similar techniques to emulate and enhance the conversational interaction of a personal construct psychologist eliciting a repertory grid. Colby, who had presented his research on computer modeling of neurosis at the same conference as Kelly, used Weizenbaum’s techniques to program a computer to simulate a paranoiac patient (Colby, 1981). In the 1980s the expert system research community implemented Kelly’s psychological theories to model and emulate human social and psychological processes as Kelly had anticipated (Shaw and Gaines, 1983; Boose, 1984; Gaines and Shaw, 1993). Kelly’s second anticipation was validated by the development of computer programs for the analysis of psychological data. In the context of PCP, for example, Slater’s (1976, 1977) Ingrid program applied Gower’s (1966) geometric model of principal component analysis to Kelly’s (1969a) notion of the psychological space represented in a repertory grid. Shaw’s (1978) Focus program provided a hierarchical cluster analysis of repertory grid data in terms of the original grid so that the basis of the analysis was clearly apparent. This chapter focuses on the role of computer-based tools and techniques in constructivist research. In the past thirty years the increasing capabilities and ubiquitous availability of personal computers connected to the Internet has led to them playing significant roles in all areas of psychological research. They support precisely controlled, complex interaction, powerful and rapid data analysis, the graphic presentation of

Computer-aided Constructivism

185

such analysis in a comprehensible and compelling form, and conversational interaction enhancing human meaning making processes. Such powerful tools can be used to make a significant contribution to a research program when used well, but they can also be used to create a false impression of authoritative technique without due care and understanding in their use. Our overall objective is to provide a framework for understanding how to use computer capabilities in a principled fashion to support constructivist research studies.

What Constitutes a Constructivist Research Orientation In PCP? If we wish to ensure that computer technology is used effectively to support constructivist studies it is important to clarify what constitutes a constructivist method. Fortunately, Kelly was a methodologist par excellence and describes and discusses in depth the essential features of constructivist approaches not only to clinical psychology but also to a wide range of disciplines including the sciences and mathematics. His methodological framework was developed from that of Dewey whose pragmatic, instrumentalist analysis of human psychological processes has had a major influence on modern philosophy, psychology and educational practice, so that there is a rich ongoing literature consistent with and complementary to Kelly’s writings (Rorty, 1982; Boisvert, 1988; Kulp, 1992; Shook, 2000). Dewey and Kelly saw psychological processes as deriving from the future-orientation of living systems, the development of capabilities to be able to anticipate a world that had sufficient coherence in time for such anticipation to be reasonably effective and provide evolutionary advantage. Hume (1888) had noted that there is no logical rationale for it to be possible to anticipate future events, and hence it is an empirical phenomenon that the world we live in often exhibits patterns that enable future experience to be anticipated from past experience. As Dewey notes: While there is no a priori assurance that any particular instance of continuity will recur, the mind endeavors to regulate future experience by postulating

186

Personal Construct Methodology

recurrence. So far as the anticipation is justified by future events, the notion is confirmed. So far as it fails to work the assured continuity is dropped or corrected. (Dewey, 1911)

In his widely circulated essay on the need for a recovery in philosophy, Dewey suggested that such anticipatory processes constituted what is meant by our notion of mind: Ability to anticipate future consequences and to respond to them as stimuli to present behavior may well define what is meant by a mind or by consciousness. (Dewey, 1917)

He associates anticipation based on experience with our notions of meaning: To be able to use the past to judge and infer the new and unknown implies that, although the past thing has gone, its meaning abides in such a way as to be applicable in determining the character of the new. (Dewey, 1933)

Kelly (1955, pp. 129, 154, 157) based his theoretical psychology on Dewey’s insights, taking anticipation as the generative principle underlying all psychological phenomena, that “a person’s processes are psychologically channelized by the ways in which he anticipates events” (1955, p. 46), and deriving all other aspects of psychological processes as corollaries of this fundamental postulate. His first corollary is that of construction, that “a person anticipates events by construing their replications” (1955, p. 50), where: By construing we mean “placing an interpretation”: a person places an interpretation upon what is construed. He erects a structure, within the framework of which the substance takes shape or assumes meaning. The substance which he construes does not produce the structure; the person does. (Kelly, 1955, p. 50)

Thus, for Kelly as for Dewey, the meaning making processes underlying our constructions of experience are an essential side effect of our use of past experience to anticipate aspects of current and potential experience.

Computer-aided Constructivism

187

The principles of constructivist psychology derive from an analysis of what it is to be an anticipatory system, and constructivist studies need to look behind the constructions they model to the roles these constructions play in the anticipatory processes they support.

Methodological principle 1 Meaning is ascribed to experience to make it comparable with other experience in order to anticipate further aspects of the experiences. Constructivist studies focus on meaning making processes. Computer support for such studies should be evaluated in terms of its enhancement of those processes. Kelly’s mode of exposition of PCP, as a postulate and its corollaries, follows that of Hull (1940) in his Mathematico-Deductive Theory of Rote Learning that Kelly admired, but reduces Hull’s eighteen postulates to one. This is an instance of one of Kelly’s most significant contributions, that he was minimalist in his theoretical system, introducing no more theoretical constructs than were necessary. He emphasizes this minimalism by not taking as fundamental many common constructs commonly adopted in theories of psychology: the term learning, so honorably embedded in most psychological texts, scarcely appears at all. That is wholly intentional; we are for throwing it overboard altogether. There is no ego, no emotion, no motivation, no reinforcement, no drive, no unconscious, no need. (Kelly, 1955, p. x) Some writers have considered it advisable to try to distinguish between “external” events and “internal” events. In our system there is no particular need for making this kind of distinction. Nor do we have to distinguish so sharply between stimulus and response, between the organism and his environment, or between the self and the not-self. (Kelly, 1955, p. 55)

One may see this care to avoid unnecessary distinctions as a natural metaconsequence of a theory which emphasizes that each distinction one makes has significant consequences, and hence one should treat making a distinction as a major methodological issue.

188

Personal Construct Methodology

Methodological principle 2 Each construction used in meaning making processes can have significant consequences for the ensuing anticipations. Constructivist studies should be minimalist in the prior constructions brought to the study, making these constructions and their consequences for the study explicit. Computer support for the studies may introduce its own prior constructions that should be included in this process of explication. Note that some prior assumptions are always necessary. One cannot commence a study with a completely empty meaning system. The methodological issues are that they should be made explicit and that they should not be multiplied unnecessarily. As Kelly notes: the knotty problems which sooner or later trick the scientist into intellectual contortions or into torturing his data with fancy statistical computations are likely to be traceable to the theory’s fundamental postulate. (Kelly, 1955, p. 35)

It is also important to note that it is not possible for a study to investigate the validity of all its prior assumptions. As Kelly notes: we should bear in mind that the moment we question the truth of a statement proposed as a postulate, that statement is no longer a postulate in our subsequent discourse. A statement, therefore, is a postulate only if we accord it that status. If we bring the statement into dispute, as well we may in some instances, we must recognize that we are then arguing from other postulates either explicitly stated or, more likely, implicitly believed. (Kelly, 1955, p. 47)

Kelly provides many examples from both everyday life and scientific practice of the problems created by anticipations derived from constructions that, because they are implicitly postulated, are not recognized as the source of the problems. Kelly used the term personal in describing his psychology to emphasize that meanings are idiosyncratic, but he also recognized that much individual activity is concerned with calibrating personal meanings against those of others: Those construction systems which can be communicated can be widely shared. The last half century has shown much progress in the development of ways of making personal constructs and construction systems more communicable. We have developed a scientific psychological vocabulary.

Computer-aided Constructivism

189

A better way of saying this is that our public construction systems for understanding other people’s personal constructs are becoming more precise and more comprehensive. (Kelly, 1955, p. 9)

Methodological principle 3 Meanings are personal but communication requires interpersonal calibration which may not necessarily be effective. Constructivist studies need to investigate whether the use of the same terms reflects the same underlying distinction. Computer tools need to be able to support such investigation. Kelly notes that one basis for the formation of public construction systems is shared experience: Persons anticipate both public events and private events . . . No two people can play precisely the same role in the same event, no matter how closely they are associated . . . But does this mean that there can be no sharing of experience? Not at all; for each may construe the likenesses and differences between the events in which he himself is involved, together with those in which he sees that the other person is involved. (Kelly, 1955, p. 55)

Methodological principle 4 Shared experiences provide a basis for calibrating and comparing personal constructs, but the notion of a shared experience is itself problematic. Constructivist studies based on the assumption that elements of experience are shared between individuals need to make that assumption explicit and, if possible, to test it. Computer tools that assume common elements of experience can be treated as identical may produce misleading results if that assumption is not valid. The calibration of personal meanings with those of the community derives from anticipations that the individual should be able to communicate with that community, but is not a deterministic constraint. Individuals have other anticipations which may override such considerations, and Kelly expresses this in what is arguably his most important corollary: a person chooses for himself that alternative in a dichotomized construct through which he anticipates the greater possibility for the elaboration of his system. (Kelly, 1970, p. 15)

190

Personal Construct Methodology

This choice corollary underlies one of Kelly’s most important notions, that of constructive alternativism, “there are always some alternative constructions available to choose among in dealing with the world” (1970, p. 15). He also notes that not all constructions are equally useful, “some of them are definitely poor implements” (1970, p. 15). The choice corollary captures the essential boundary between logic and psychology, that there is an underlying logic to anticipatory processes which, as illustrated in the next section, computers can support and emulate. But there is also human choice in the way in that meanings are given to experience which is strongly influenced by the anticipations ensuing from that choice but not at all determined by them. As Kelly notes, this limits what computers can emulate: A sorting machine, no matter how complex, is not a thinking machine as long as we have to select data to feed into it” (Kelly, 1955, p. 64).

Harnad (1990) termed this issue the symbol grounding problem and studies of possible resolutions in both people and machines have become a major focus of psychological (Pecher and Zwaan, 2005) and artificial intelligence research (Taddeo and Floridi, 2005).

Methodological principle 5 There is always choice in the meanings that are used to interpret experience. Constructivist studies need to recognize the choices being made and the anticipations underlying them. Computers can model the basis of choice but not necessarily the choice process itself. One consequence of Kelly’s systemic formulation of PCP is that it provides a model of any anticipatory system, not only individuals but also groups, organizations, disciplines, cultures, societies, and human civilization as a whole. There is no need to invoke controversial notions of group minds, since there is no invocation of notions of an individual mind as a causative structure. There is only the simple systemic principle that the anticipatory processes of any entity can be analyzed using the principles which Kelly develops.

Methodological principle 6 The anticipatory processes of people acting together may be modeled using the principles of PCP. Constructivist studies can encompass individuals,

Computer-aided Constructivism

191

groups, organizations, disciplines, cultures, societies, and human civilization as a whole. Computers can support the complex data structuring and analysis required for such studies. One of the groups involved in constructivist studies is the psychologist together with her or his subjects, and the principles of PCP apply equally to all involved. The anticipatory processes of the psychologist are similar to those of the subjects and need to be modeled as part of the study if they are not to be a source of undocumented artifacts.

Methodological principle 7 The anticipatory processes of psychologists are similar to those of their subjects. Constructivist studies need to recognize that the meaning making processes of those conducting them are at least as great an influence on the outcome as those of the subjects being studied. Computer tools can be used to model the meaning processes of those conducting the study as well as those being studied and the interactions between them. There are many more methodological principles and issues. We have chosen to highlight those above because they address many of the issues raised by users of our PCP-based computer programs. There is one further principle that has been a major one in the design of these programs, that there should be no “magic” in the use of them:

Methodological principle 8 Computer programs used in PCP studies should be designed to be supportive colleagues rather than authoritarian experts. The assumptions underlying them and the processes they carry out should be simple and understandable and relate as directly as possible to the principles of PCP. The following sections illustrate how computational tools may be used to model and support Kelly’s personal construct psychology.

The Logical Structure of Construct Networks Kelly introduces his notion of a “construction system” with the following metaphor: Man looks at his world through transparent patterns or templets which he creates and then attempts to fit over the realities of which the world is

192

Personal Construct Methodology

composed. The fit is not always very good. Yet without such patterns the world appears to be such an undifferentiated homogeneity that man is unable to make any sense out of it. Even a poor fit is more helpful to him than nothing at all. (Kelly, 1955, pp. 8–9)

Deconstructing the notion of a templet is a good starting point for a logical model of Kelly’s constructivist theory. Dictionary definitions illustrate how the term captures some of his most important insights. “A model or standard for making comparisons,” emphasizes the role of a psychological templet in enabling experiences to be compared for purposes of anticipation. “A pattern or gauge used as a guide in making something accurately,” captures the role of a psychological templet in shaping experience, that something is modified to fit the templet. The fitting of a templet can be an active process of changing the world, not just a passive process of gauging whether the world fits the templet. These connotations of the term, templet, nicely span the range of meanings that Kelly accommodates within the term, anticipation: of prediction of what may happen; of action to make something happen; of creative imagination of what might happen or be made to happen; and of preparation for eventualities that may well never happen.

Logical relations between templets We will take as primitive notions: experience, templet, and a relation between them of fit, that a templet may be said to fit an experience, and examine the possible relations between templets. One possible relation is entailment, that if one templet fits an experience then it entails that another templet will also fit that experience. As a concrete example, consider the boundary of a building lot as a templet within which a house designer must fit a house. If a builder has given us a list of house designs that will fit on a lot we are considering and we then consider a larger lot whose boundary would encompass the original lot we know this entails that any house design we were considering will also fit the larger lot, and there may be additional house designs that will fit it also. Another possible relation is incompatibility creating opposition or contrast, that if one templet fits an experience then another will not fit that experience. For example, if building lot templets have to be considered in three dimensions because some are on the side of a steep slope then it may be

Computer-aided Constructivism

193

that the houses designed for flat lots are incompatible with sloping lots and vice versa. Such relations between templets enable us to make anticipations from the fit of one templet to the fit of another. There are other bases for anticipation. For example, if we walk around part a finished housing project and notice that only the houses on the largest lots have double garages, we might anticipate that we will need to purchase a house on such a lot if we want that type of garage. That anticipation is based on matching against experience rather than an intrinsic relation between templets. We might be told this is the situation by the realtor rather than noticing it ourselves, in which case the experience is mediated rather than direct. We might find that the house designer is only prepared to put a triple garage house on the largest lots, which creates more complex entailment/contrast relations between templets than we had previously understood.

Representing logical relations between templets These are the types of issues of relations between templets, experience and anticipation that Kelly encompasses in the corollaries to his fundamental postulate that elaborates his notion of a construct system and its central role in human psychology. We can express them in logical terms suitable for computer implementation by representing the entailment relation as an arrow from one templet to those that it entails (Figure 9.1 left), that if templet A fits an experience then templet B will fit; and the contrast relation by a negated arrow from one templet to those with which it is incompatible (Figure 9.1 center), that if templet A fits an experience then templet C will not fit. These two relations enable us to represent Kelly’s basic structure, that he terms a construct, as shown on the right of Figure 9.1 where templets A and C are incompatible and each entails templet B. Templet B captures the commonality between experiences that fall within the range of convenience Templet B Templet A

Templet B Entailment

Templet A

Templet C

Templet A

Incompatibility

Figure 9.1 Some relations between templets.

Templet C Construct

194

Personal Construct Methodology size small

size large

small

large medium

Figure 9.2 Some constructs.

of the construct, and the polar opposites (poles), A and C, capture the contrast between them. The arrows of entailment and contrast may be used to represent more elaborate networks of relations between templets. As Kelly noted, “no construct ever stands entirely alone; it makes sense only as it appears in a network” (Kelly, 1955, p. 304). Figure 9.2 left gives a concrete example of a construct of size with poles large and small. Figure 9.3 right elaborates the network by adding the intermediate pole medium which is opposite to both small and large. Note that we can conceptualize this structure as a network of three linked constructs, each having the same range of convenience, or as a single construct having three poles. Multipolarity is a structure built on bipolarity. Note that we can also conceptualize these constructs as an attribute (size) having possible values (small, medium, large). Other literatures discuss constructs using different terminologies but describing the same logical structure.

Hierarchies Figure 9.3 left shows how each pole of the construct can be used as the range of convenience of a construct that makes finer distinctions. This structure is a hierarchy, a structure long used to classify knowledge, for example, in Aristotle’s Categories and Roget’s Thesaurus.

size

size

small very small

fairly small

large fairly large

small very large

very small

fairly small

large

medium

Figure 9.3 Some construct hierarchies.

fairly large

very large

Computer-aided Constructivism

195

The network shown can be conceptualized as: three linked constructs; a single construct having four poles and internal structure; an attributes with values; or a hierarchy. It illustrates what Kelly (1955, p. 57) means when he notes that “one construct may subsume another as one of its elements.” Figure 9.3 right shows how the intermediate pole can also be added.

Rating scales The obvious ordinal relationship between the poles of the construct networks in Figures 9.2 and 9.3 can be derived from the logical structure by taking certain poles to be fundamental or salient and the others to derive their meanings from the salient poles they entail. For example, in Figure 9.2 right if small and large are taken as the salient poles then medium is characterized through its entailment that neither small nor large will fit. The sets of salient implications for each pole are: small ! ½small; not large; medium ! ½not small; not large; large ! ½not small; large The cardinalities of the set-theoretical symmetric differences between these sets of salient implications are: dðsmall; mediumÞ ¼ 2; dðmedium; largeÞ ¼ 2; dðsmall; largeÞ ¼ 4 which shows that the function, d, is a linear distance measure placing the poles along a three-point rating scale. A similar analysis of Figure 9.3 left and right gives rise to four- and fivepoint rating scales respectively if very small and very large are taken as additional salient poles. The value of 2 for the distances between the terminal pole suggests that there may be intermediate points with distance 1, and this is so. In Figure 9.3 right small and large correspond to points intermediate between very small and fairly small or fairly large and very large, respectively, along a seven-point scale. There are also two other intermediate points not shown that extend this to a nine-point scale. Thus, as Kelly (1955, pp. 141–145) discusses in detail, some forms of construct network have a natural interpretation in terms of rating scales. Note, however, that different structures may generate the same scale, so that there is not necessarily an unambiguous logical representation of a rating scale. For example, Gaines (2009) analyzes a nonhierarchical construct

196

Personal Construct Methodology

network that also generates two- through nine-point scales. This ambiguity has been discussed in the PCP literature as the problem of determining the intended meaning of the center point of a rating scale (Yorke, 2001).

Derived entailment and contrast relations There are additional arrows of entailment and contrast that could be added to Figure 9.3 but are not present because they can be derived from those already in place. For example, that the templet very small fits an experience entails that size fits that experience can be derived because very small entails small and small entails size. That very small contrasts with medium can be derived from very small implies small but medium contrasts with small. The logical inference process involved in this derivation is very simple, consisting of propagating chosen and derived fits through the network. Such propagation is one of the basic algorithms of logical theorem provers (Davis, Logemann, and Loveland, 1962) and also the mechanism of spreading activation in psychological models of semantic memory (Collins and Quillian, 1969). Figure 9.4 shows an inference algorithm in the RepNet tool in Rep 5 (Gaines, 2009) being used to derive the fit of other templets when one templet has been chosen to fit an experience. A vertical bar is used to indicate fit, and a horizontal bar to indicate lack of fit. On the left it has been asserted that very small fits and the inference algorithm has used the arrows of entailment and contrast to derive that small also fits, fairly small does not, and so on. On the right medium fits has been asserted and the fit of the other templets derived.

Relevance Kelly (1955, p. 63) notes that the tripartite structure of a construct distinguishes between lack of fit due to contrast and that due to irrelevance. In Figure 9.1 right, if we know that templet B does not fit an experience then we would not inquire about templets A and C because we would see them as irrelevant. The reason they do not fit is because they are inapplicable rather than that they might possibly fit but do not. In the more concrete terms of Figures 9.2 and 9.3, if the notion of size is not applicable to an element of experience then it is not relevant, or meaningless, to consider whether the element is large or small.

very small

fairly small

small fairly large

large very large very small

fairly small

small

medium

size

Figure 9.4 Derivation through inference in construct networks.

medium

size

fairly large

large very large

Computer-aided Constructivism 197

198

Personal Construct Methodology

The management of our construing of experience in terms of relevance has obvious processing advantages in that we do not need to consider parts of the network that are irrelevant. Similar advantages appertain to inter-personal interaction where we do not need to communicate that which is irrelevant. Much of social and organizational structure derives from the management of relevance. A baker does not need to have a construct network relevant to manufacturing machinery. A chemist does not need the repertoire of constructs of a philosopher or vice versa.

Meta-values Note that Kelly has not introduced any nonstandard logical notions in his model of relevance. A templet is either chosen to fit or it is not (or the choice is left open, but that is a deferral of choice, not a nonstandard truth value). Relevance is managed through the structure of a construct. It is irrelevant to consider whether a templet fits an experience if the experience does not fall within the templet’s associated range of convenience. However, it may be useful in some situations to treat relevance as if it were an additional logical constant, that the fit between a construct pole and an experience may be true, false, or inapplicable, where inapplicable means “false but irrelevant.” Kelly (1955, p. 315) discusses this in his chapter on the Structure of Psychological Space as the need for a third marker in a conceptual grid when the element falls outside the range of convenience of a construct. We have found it useful in Rep 5 to support five meta-values: open meaning that an element has not been construed on a particular construct; unknown meaning that a construction cannot be supplied; any meaning that any pole might fit; none meaning that none of the defined poles fit; and inapplicable meaning that the construct is irrelevant.

More Complex Templet Structures within Construct Networks It is tempting to look at the logical structure of construct poles and see them as predicates in standard predicate calculus. If the templets were logical predicates that could be applied to experience then the relations represented

Computer-aided Constructivism

199

are ones that might hold among them. However, templets are generally rather more complex than logical predicates, encompassing logical formulae having structure, variables and relations between them. A templet may fit the same experience in more than one way, and in fitting it may instantiate its variables and do so in more than one way.

Complex templets Figure 9.5 illustrates more complex templets through a hierarchy representing those a home decorator might used in discussion various options to a client. The notions of art object and furniture have a rich structure of connotations that would require a large construct network to represent but, in this context of use, the decorator can take those networks for granted and focus only on the distinctions relevant to the discussion represented in Figure 9.5. Thus, the network structure is phenomenological rather than definitional. Fitting an element to a templet forming one pole of a construct implies that it will not be fitted to the templet represented by the other pole and implies that some other templets in the network will or will not fit. These inferences follow from the entailments and contrasts for whatever reason they are present in someone’s construct network. Their sources may be purely psychological, that someone happens to see the world in that way, or partially logical in that the connotations of the templets are such that they entail one another or contrast with one another. Kelly (1955) provides a wide range of examples of how the constructs may arise, and it is important to realize that the entailments and contrasts involved may stem from many diverse sources, involving a variety of structures and processes.

home furnishing art object picture realist

abstract

furniture

ornament figurine

table vase

dining

chair coffee

upright

Figure 9.5 A hierarchy of more complex constructs.

armchair

200

Personal Construct Methodology

Representing the connotations of complex templets To illustrate how the connotations of a complex templet are represented in a construct network, Figure 9.6 represents the notion of art object as a construct network derived from the art literature. Weitz (1977) argues that art objects are stereotypical examples of what he terms an open concept, subject to change and lacking formal definition. Danto (1964) had previously suggested a matrix structure for conceptualizing art objects in which the rows are conceptual dimensions, essentially constructs, the columns are art objects, and the number of rows increases as innovations in art invoke new dimensions of construction. Gaut (2000, 2005) develops such a matrix in detail to provide what he terms a cluster concept for an art object in which some but not all of the dimensions may be instantiated by particular art objects. Figure 9.6 top shows the 11 constructs which Gaut presents as the relevant dimensions along which one characterizes an art object. At the center an art object is shown as entailing each of these dimensions, that is, as falling

aesthetics

intellect emotion

aesthetically positive

aesthetically negative

challenging expressive

unchallenging

unexpressive

individuality

complexity coherence complex form

simple form

coherent skill

imagination

creative

high skill

complex meaning low skill

uncreative

intellect

coherence

meaning

lacking individuality intention

simple meaning intend to create art

art form

established form

complexity

showing individuality

meaning

incoherent

other intention

unestablished form

individuality

imagination

skill

emotion

art form

aesthetics

intention

art object complex form

coherent

complex meaning

showing individuality

challenging

creative high skill established form

expressive aesthetically positive

ideal art object

intend to create art

Figure 9.6 Conceptual dimensions of art objects.

Computer-aided Constructivism

201

within their ranges of convenience. At the bottom a stereotypical ideal art object is shown as entailing the positive pole of each dimension. This construct network provides a conceptual framework for much of the discussion in the aesthetics community about the nature of art objects. The stereotypical ideal art object templet is of interest because, while many art objects conform to the ideal, there are also be many exceptions that are of particular interest just because they exemplify the boundaries of the norm. People will use the templet to construe something as an art object but not, say, challenging or aesthetically positive. One will usually not wish to consider all the 2048 (211) “but not” possibilities, although some of them may become so commonly instantiated as to be given specific names. This potential explosion of “but not” possibilities is one reason why the original cluster concept notion has been criticized (Bo€er, 1974), but the dynamic creation of transient templets is an intrinsic capability of a construct network. Note that the frame templet, art object, is itself the pole of a construct as illustrated in Figure 9.5. Construing an experience from the perspective of a particular frame is itself a choice of one construct pole rather than another. Note also that the “worst possible” art object that entails all the negative poles can still be construed as an art object, just a very poor one. We can still choose to fit the templet, perhaps sarcastically.

Schema, faceted taxonomy, conceptual grid, frame The generic structure illustrated in Figure 9.6 where the connotations of a templet such as art object are represented by the way it entails the range of convenience templets of a number of relevant constructs has been given many names in the literature. In the context of human memory processes, Bartlett (1932) terms the network of connotations associated with a templet a schema which is fitted to and modified by experience, with memory being the term we use for the capability to retrieve such schemata. In the context of library science Ranganathan (1933) terms the network a faceted taxonomy with the ranges of convenience the facets and the networks below them structured them as taxonomies. In the context of PCP, Kelly calls the matrix of connotation constructs and the elements of experience that fall under them a conceptual grid (Kelly, 1955, pp. 301–302), a conceptual matrix (Kelly, 1969b), and a repertory grid (p. 270) when used to study relationships.

202

Personal Construct Methodology

In the context of knowledge representation, Minsky (1974) terms the connotation constructs a frame for the primary templet with the construct ranges of convenience the slots and the poles the values of those slots. In the context of developmental psychology, Piaget (1985) adopts Bartlett’s notion of schema and terms the fitting of schema to experience assimilation, and the elaboration of schema to fit experience accommodation, with the processes competing in a process of cognitive equilibration. In the context of linguistics Fillmore (1985) argues that frames provide the basis for natural language understanding, and is developing Framenet as a widely available implementation of a frame-based semantic memory (Fillmore, 2003). In the context of cognitive psychology, Barsalou (1992) proposes that “frames provide the fundamental representation of knowledge in human cognitions,” and gives many detailed examples illustrating this assertion. Thus, there is a rich and diverse literature outside PCP, but largely consistent with it, that may be used in constructivist studies to elaborate Kelly’s theoretical psychology.

Semantic networks Pioneers of cognitive science, such as Quillian (1967) in his seminal studies of the computer simulation of human memory and meaning processes, cite Kelly’s (1955) psychological model as supporting their own developments of semantic network models of human thought and language. Research in cognitive science and artificial intelligence has developed these models in great depth, implemented them in powerful computer programs and applied them to a wide range of applications (Lehmann, 1992). The networks in this chapter are examples of the semantic network formalism. The full formalism provides additional graphic structures to provide a shorthand notation for commonly occurring construct structures such as individuals, relations and numeric constraints (Gaines, 2009), and the logical complexity of anticipatory inference with such structures has been studied in depth in the literature on description logics (Baader et al., 2003). These more elaborate semantic networks are also construct networks as discussed above, and the primary inference mechanisms based on them are those of entailment and contrast, expressed in the literature as one “concept” subsuming another or being disjoint with another. For example, the cardinality constraints on a family of having zero, one, more than one children, are logical contrasts generating three bipolar constructs.

Computer-aided Constructivism

203

The evolution of the precise logical/mathematical structures of description logics from the psychological structures of construct networks parallels the evolution of precise, quantitative, scientific models from the imprecise, qualitative, folk science of everyday life. Personal and professional science have a common foundation of anticipation based on experience represented in construct networks.

Anticipation, Experience, and Language An anticipatory system assimilates its experience to its current templets and, through their entailments and contrasts, anticipates other aspects of those experiences. In doing so it may act to ensure the experience fits the templet, thereby changing the world. If it finds that its anticipations fail it may add additional templets to accommodate the experience by providing a better fit, thereby changing itself. One can view this as the co-evolution of the system and its environment, noting that the separation between them, the individuation of the system is itself a construct of the system or an observer. One can also see why Kelly (1955, p. 302) terms his conceptual grid a “cybernetic model” – it conforms with Ashby’s (1946) cybernetic model of the cerebral cortex as an ultrastable system that moves from one equilibrium to another as it interacts with its environment, and to Rosenblueth, Wiener, and Bigelow’s (1943) cybernetic model of the way in which negative feedback generates anticipatory, futuredirected, behavior. A number of notions that play important roles in many psychological theories appear as epiphenomenal terms for processes of anticipation Kelly’s cybernetic model. Learning is a label for elaborations of the construct system inferred to underlie observed activity. Motivation is a label for the choice of templet inferred to underlie observed activity. Internal and external, self and not-self are ways of dichotomously construing a construct network, but it is also possible to bypass the dichotomy and construe the embedded, ecological and collective aspects of construct networks distributed across multiple people and physical artifacts (Gaines, 1994).

Representing experience To provide a concrete example Figure 9.7 shows some aspects of the experience of some of the art objects that Gaut discusses in relation to his

204

Personal Construct Methodology showing individuality

art object

complex meaning

creative

art object

showing individuality

coherent coherent simple form

low skill Duchamp's readymades

intend to create art

complex form

challenging created by Duchamp

unexpressive

bicycle wheel

Duchamp's bicycle wheel

made in 1913

creative Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon

expressive aesthetically negative

high skill established form

intend to create art

Figure 9.7 Some art object experiences.

art object templet. Experiences of art objects generate templets that entail the templet art object, poles of the constructs whose ranges of convenience it entails, and other aspects of art objects that may relate to these constructs such as the artist who intended to create the art, or to other templets such as those for objects in a building or physical objects in general. Duchamp’s (Duve, 1991) submission of everyday, readymade items to art exhibitions is presented by Gaut as a case instantiating several of the negative poles of the art object templet, and perhaps not being construable on some of its entailed constructs. His submissions were sometimes controversial whether accepted or rejected and sometimes accepted virtually unnoticed, corresponding to alternative choices by different people. They are now treated as art objects having been accommodated with a further templet entailing art object but clearly distinct from ideal art object. Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d‘Avignon is presented by Gaut as an art object that was provocatively aesthetically negative. This may be accommodated by another additional templet or by changing one’s notion of aesthetically positive. We have added a templet for Duchamp’s first readymade, the bicycle wheel, to illustrate some aspects of the templet of an individuated experience, that is, one not of a class concept (Kelly, 1955, p. 63) such as Duchamp’s readymades, but of a countable instance of that class. As Kelly (1955, p. 54) notes “counting makes sense if the things are distinguishable from each other” and “what we count depends on what we abstract to be counted.” Individuation corresponds to unicity, that the derivations of the templet only fit one particular individual. Individuation is determined by our construct network, and we do not need an additional structure to represent individuals. Note, however, that we often create unique labels to provide distinguishing entailments for

Computer-aided Constructivism

205

experience templets that we choose to construe as individuals. Thus, elements of experience may be abstract summaries generated by many similar experiences or concrete instances of specific experiences, but they are all templets with similar structures within our construct networks.

Lexical entailments Note that the names shown for the templets involve no additional structure. They are lexical labels entailed by the templets, shown for purposes of communication as the names of the templets. They may be generated as a lexical description of some of the other entailments of the templet, possibly intended as an individuating definite description in Russell’s (1905) terminology. However, they may also stand alone as an opaque entailment of the templet. For example, if one read a novel in which an item in a house was described as “one of Duchamp’s readymades” one’s construct network might accommodate this with a templet for Duchamp’s readymades without any connotations other than they are mentioned in the novel and can be an item in a house. One might conjecture that Duchamp is the name of a company manufacturing kitchen appliances, and only many year later, if at all, find out that readymades are art objects and, even later, that they are somewhat peculiar ones. As Kelly (1955, p. 51) notes, construing does not necessary involve language. Perceptual templets with no lexical entailment may be activated to fit experience, and further templets entailing these may be identified by their entailments without involving any verbalization. Words and phrases are attached to templets as entailed lexical templets through the same processes that lead to other entailments/contrasts in the network.

Conceptual Grid/Matrix Representation of a Construct Network We have focused so far on modeling the logical structure of Kelly’s psychology in terms of construct networks of templets linked by relations of entailment and contrast. This is the most perspicuous way of visualizing the nature of constructs and the relations discussed in Kelly’s organization (Kelly, 1955, pp. 56–59) and dichotomy (pp. 59–64) corollaries, and it is supported computationally by semantic network tools.

206

Personal Construct Methodology

However, in PCP studies construct networks are also commonly represented by an equivalent model in matrix form which, as discussed earlier, Kelly terms a conceptual grid/matrix and which is nowadays usually termed a repertory grid. Other chapters in this book cover a wide range of issues in repertory grid elicitation, analysis and interpretation. In this section we comment on a few important issues that arise out of the previous sections. We will focus on how the methodological principles developed at the beginning of this chapter can be addressed in the design and application of computer tools intended to support constructivist studies, in general, how the tools can be used to enhance anticipatory and associated meaning making processes.

An example of grid representation Figure 9.8 shows a conceptual grid/matrix, or repertory grid, representation of the art object templet from Figures 9.6 and 9.7 with poles of the constructs defining the rows, the elements of experience defining the columns, and the

Display 'art object templet' (Gaut, 2000) aesthetically positive expressive challenging complex form coherent complex meaning showing individuality creative high skill established form intend to create art

* * * * * * * * * * *

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

* 5 * 5 1 * 1 1 5 * 1

3 5 3 5 1 5 1 1 5 5 1

5 aesthetically negative 1 unexpressive 1 unchallenging 1 simple form 1 incoherent 1 simple meaning 1 lacking individuality 1 uncreative 1 low skill 1 unestablished form 1 other intention

Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon Duchamp's bicycle wheel Duchamp's readymades ideal art object art object

Figure 9.8 Conceptual grid for art object templet.

Computer-aided Constructivism

207

ratings on a one to five scale indicating how Gaut chooses to construe an element on a construct. A 1–5 rating scale has been used with 1 for the lefthand pole and 5 for the right although, obviously, any other rating scale would be equally adequate. The meta-value “any” is represented by an asterisk Use of this meta-value characterizes abstract elements of experience, templets that represent a class of experiences. The grid of Figure 9.8 is isomorphic to the network of Figures 9.6 and 9.7. We can readily create one representation from the other. The meta-value “any” represented by “ ” enables us to infer that all the other element templets entail the art object templet, and that Duchamp‘s bicycle wheel templet entails Duchamp‘s readymades templet. We can “flatten” any hierarchical construct network into a repertory grid isomorphic to it, and reconstruct the network from the grid. Construct networks representations make it easy to see how “the personal construct system can be viewed cybernetically” (Kelly, 1955, p. 146) as a system for anticipation based on experience. Kelly’s isomorphic representation of the personal construct system as a conceptual grid provides the same “cybernetic model” (Kelly, 1955, p. 302). From a computational perspective the network and grid representations carry the same information and can be used equivalently to model human psychological processes. From a human perspective, sometimes one representation is easier to develop and understand than the other. Both should be available as tools for constructivist studies.

Hierarchies generated by clustering algorithms One approach to the analysis of constructs networks represented in grid form has been to cluster the elements and constructs hierarchically using Shaw’s (1980) Focus clustering algorithm. A reasonable methodological question is what relation the hierarchies produced have to those in the network representation. Figure 9.9 shows the home furnishing network of Figure 9.5 with individual templets instantiating all contrasting templets, and Figure 9.10 shows its representation in grid form, again arbitrarily using a 1 to 5 rating scale with 1 representing a left-hand pole. The meta-value “inapplicable” represented by “” is now needed since some elements are not within the range of convenience of some constructs. Focus sorts the rows and columns of the grid to bring similar items together, and represents the degree of match as a hierarchical cluster as shown in Figure 9.11. It can be seen at the bottom right that the hierarchical

208

Personal Construct Methodology home furnishing art object

furniture

picture

ornament

table

chair

realist

abstract

figurine

vase

dining

coffee

upright

armchair

'Constable Country'

'Gray on Black'

'Faery Queen'

Crystal Vase

Dining Table

Coffee Table

Upright Chair

Lounge Chair

Figure 9.9 Home furnishing network with individual templets.

structure of the network representation of Figure 9.9 has been regenerated by the Focus matching and sorting algorithms. An important feature of the Focus analysis is the presentation of the clusters in terms of the sorted grid. For example, if we examine the cluster, “Faery Queen” and Crystal Vase, we can see that these elements are integrated by the constructs art object–furniture and picture–ornament, and differentiated by the construct figurine–vase. The Focus clusters can provide input to the meaning processes of those with an interest in the grid because Display 'home furnishing frame' art object picture table realist figurine dining upright

1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~

1 1 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~

1 5 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~

1 5 ~ ~ 5 ~ ~

5 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~

5 ~ 1 ~ ~ 5 ~

5 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 1

5 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 5

furniture ornament chair abstract vase coffee armchair

Lounge Chair Upright Chair Coffee Table Dining Table Crystal Vase 'Faery Queen' 'Gray on Black' 'Constable Country'

Figure 9.10 Grid representation of home furnishing network.

Computer-aided Constructivism

209

Focus 'home furnishing frame' 100 upright table dining realist picture figurine art object

~ ~ ~ ~ 5 5 1

~ ~ ~ ~ 5 1 1

~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ 1

~ ~ ~ 5 1 ~ 1

~ 1 5 ~ ~ ~ 5

~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 5

1 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5

5 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

armchair chair coffee abstract ornament vase furniture 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Lounge Chair Upright Chair Dining Table Coffee Table 'Gray on Black' 'Constable Country' 'Faery Queen' Crystal Vase

Figure 9.11 Focus analysis of grid representation of home furnishing frame.

the meaning of the clusters can be understood in terms of the original grid data. Note the importance of supporting the meta-value “inapplicable” in allowing constructs whose range of convenience does not encompass all the elements to be represented in grid form. Elicitation procedures that force the use of constructs that encompass all the elements can fail to elicit significant constructs. For example, consider a grid for the frame holiday resorts where some resorts are by an ocean or lake and others are inland. The construct has sandy beaches–has stony beaches may be important to the anticipation of the relative attractiveness of the resorts to which it is applicable but irrelevant to others.

Enhancing the meaning of analyses through user interaction Constructivist theory emphasizes the importance of our interactions with the world in coming to make it meaningful. Making analyses interactive to allow their meanings to be explored has been a major objective of our research. For example, when a grid is being elicited in the WebGrid component of Rep 5, users can analyze it at any time to guide the elicitation. If they feel that a surprising feature of the analysis results from a misconstruction they have entered they can adjust this simply and easily and see the impact on the

210

Personal Construct Methodology 60 70 80 90

small group involvement self-organised flexible variable content like no equipment

3 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 100 1 4 4 2 5 5 1 1 large group 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 remoteness 1 3 4 4 5 5 2 2 staff-organised 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 2 rigid 1 3 2 4 4 5 5 5 specific content 1 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 dislike 3 5 1 1 2 5 4 5 equipment

90

80

70

60

video tape programmed text film lecture tutorial seminar practical library informal interaction

Figure 9.12 Focus analysis of grid on learning situations.

analysis by clicking on an element or construct to go to the rating system, adjust the entered construction, and see the impact on the analysis. They can also switch to a mode where if they click on an element or construct that item is temporarily removed from the analysis so that they can see how sensitive the analysis is to the presence of that element or construct. Figure 9.12 shows a Focus analysis of a simple grid on learning situations. The user may notice that the construct equipment—no equipment is an outlier and wonder what effect it is having on the element clustering. Clicking on this construct excludes it from the analysis, producing the new analysis shown in Figure 9.13, where it can be seen, for example, that film and lecture are now more tightly clustered. This may cause the user to question whether the involvement of equipment is relevant to their evaluation of learning situations. What is important is that users are able to explore the anticipatory consequences of various components of their construct systems and thereby come to understand them better, that is, to enhance their meaning. Modern computers can process the data at a rate which matches

Computer-aided Constructivism

211

50 60 70 80 90

small group involvement self-organised flexible variable content like

4 2 4 3 2 2

4 1 3 2 3 2

3 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 3 2 2 5 5

1 2 2 5 5 5

2 3 4 4 4 4

5 4 5 4 4 5

100 100 5 large group 5 remoteness 5 staff-organised 5 rigid 5 specific content 5 dislike

90

80

70

60

film lecture tutorial programmed text video tape library informal interaction practical seminar

Figure 9.13 Focus analysis of grid on learning situations with a construct excluded.

the speed of the users’ thought processes, and the analyses they produce are no longer opaque and authoritarian but interactive and responsive to the users explorations of their construct systems.

Understanding and exploring psychological space Kelly (1955, Chapter 6) introduces a compelling geometric metaphor for a construct system that the constructs are the axes of a multi-dimensional psychological space, and the construed elements of experience are points in this space. Gower (1966) showed that principal components analysis could be construed not as an opaque statistical technique but as a rotation of data points in the multi-dimensional space of the variables used to represent them. Slater (1976, 1977) used Kelly’s and Gower’s insights to develop his Ingrid program which used principal components analysis to present a grid as a two-dimensional map. One problem of principal components analysis is that, unlike the Focus cluster analysis, there is no link to the grid data and hence the user may have

212

Personal Construct Methodology video tape equipment programmed text practical

film small group

library dislike like

large group lecture

tutorial informal interaction

no equipment seminar

Figure 9.14 Crossplot of three constructs from grid on learning situations.

difficulty in understanding the meaning of the output. We have addressed this issue in two ways: by providing the same interactivity as for Focus, making it easy to exclude one or more elements or constructs from the analysis and construe the impact of doing so; and by providing a 2- or 3-D cross-plot capability that makes the geometric metaphor clear. For example Figure 9.14 shows a crossplot of the elements from the grid on learning situations on three of the constructs. Crossplots are a useful capability as they are commonly used to display how elements relate to particular constructs, but the application here is to help the user understand the psychological space metaphor in preparation for understanding a principal components analysis (Figure 9.15) as a rotation of that space. Again, users can click on any element or construct in Figure 9.15 to exclude it from the analysis, and explore its role in their construct system. Interactivity supporting explorations of meaning is one of the most important capabilities of computer systems. As an outcome of their interactions with the analyses, users come to reconstrue them, not as definitive representations of their construct systems but rather as flexible interpretations sensitive to the elements, constructs and ratings that the user provide. Coming to understand this sensitivity not only enhances the

Computer-aided Constructivism video tape

213

small group

programmed text equipment

self-organised

specific content dislike library rigid

involvement

tutorial

flexible

1: 57.3%

practical

film 3: 12.0%

remoteness

informal interaction no equipment

staff-organised

seminar

lecture

like variable content

2: 24.8% large group Percentage variance in each component 1: 57.3% 2: 24.8% 3: 12.0% 4: 3.2% 5: 1.3% 6: 1.2%

Figure 9.15 Principal components analysis of grid on learning situations.

meanings of the analyses but also provides insights into similar sensitivities in their own and others construct systems.

Multiple grid analysis Individuals are concerned with calibrating their personal meanings against those of others, and the comparison of construct networks is an important capability to support with computer tools. The techniques for doing this are very effective but involve strong assumptions as discussed in methodological principles 2 and 3, and it is important that these assumptions be made explicit and investigated. Consider the exchange grid situation where we elicit a grid from one person and then have a second person fill in the ratings on “the same” elements and constructs. It is simple to compute the differences in ratings between the two grids, sort the matches and plot them to show areas of agreement and disagreement as shown in Figure 9.16. However, the source of the differences is not, and cannot, be determined from this analysis. Is video tape being construed very differently because one person envisions its use to show prepared materials and the other to allow students to capture their own experiences, or do they both envision prepared materials and one

214

Personal Construct Methodology 100 90 80 70 60 50

equipment small group like self-organised flexible involvement variable content

1 2 2 3 3 2

2 2

1 2 3 1 3

2 1 1 2 4

1 2 1 2

1 2 1 2

2 1 1

1

1 4 1

2

1 1

no equipment large group dislike staff-organised rigid remoteness specific content 100 90 80 70 60 50 film lecture practical seminar informal interaction tutorial library programmed text video tape

Figure 9.16 Comparison of two grids with “the same” elements and constructs.

sees tape allowing more flexible and self-organized use than film because it can more readily be accessed by individuals, or is there a general difference in the way in which the terms flexible and rigid are being used? These various possibilities are fruitful sources of discussion between those from whom the grids were elicited, and only they can resolve them. The realization that they are using the same terms with different meanings may be the most important outcome for the people involved. By using the techniques already described of excluding elements and constructs from the analysis they may also come to understand how the apparent “sameness” of elements or constructs is dependent on the constructs, or elements, respectively used to compare them. Principal components analysis of the composite grids produced on the assumption that the elements are “the same” (Figure 9.17) or the constructs are “the same” (Figure 9.18) can trigger similar insights. The relative rotations of construct axes with the same pole names in Figure 9.17 corresponds to the relative construct matches in Figure 9.16 but provides an alternative visualization. The relative positions of the elements in the compound psychological space of Figure 9.18 corresponds to the relative elements matches in Figure 9.16 but provides another alternative visualization. However, the most insightful realization is that these two analyses are using exactly the same construct network data but making two different assumptions, either that there is a common usage of the element terms or a

Computer-aided Constructivism

215

equipment (Arthur) specific content (Mary) (Arthur) small group

equipment (Mary)

(Arthur) self-organised library

(Arthur) flexible (Mary) small group (Mary) like (Arthur) like (Mary) self-organised (Arthur) variable content

(Mary) flexible informal interaction seminar (Mary) no equipment

video tape

practical (Mary) involvement

(Arthur) involvement

programmed text rigid (Mary) staff-organised (Mary) specific content (Arthur) 1: 53.2% dislike (Mary) film dislike (Arthur) large group (Mary) lecture tutorial remoteness (Arthur) remoteness (Mary) rigid (Arthur) large group (Arthur) staff-organised (Arthur)

(Mary) variable content (Arthur) no equipment

2: 18.3%

Figure 9.17 PrinGrid analysis of composite of two grids assuming elements are “the same.”

common usage of the construct terms. If different individuals construe the same experiences differently is it because they having different experiences or because they use the constructs idiosyncratically? If the same individual construes the same entities differently at a later time is it because the entities no equipment large group variable content (Mary) informal interaction

(Arthur) seminar

(Arthur) informal interaction (Mary) seminar like

remoteness

lecture (Arthur)

staff-organised tutorial (Arthur) lecture (Mary)

(Mary) tutorial

film (Mary) rigid

film (Arthur) 1: 55.2%

flexible

dislike

(Arthur) library

video tape (Mary) (Mary) programmed text

self-organised involvement small group

(Arthur) practical (Mary) library (Mary) practical

programmed text (Arthur)

specific content

video tape (Arthur)

2: 17.4%

equipment

Figure 9.18 PrinGrid analysis of composite of two grids assuming constructs are “the same.”

216

Personal Construct Methodology 100 90 80 70 60 50 like informal

5 5

4 3

2 3

5 5

5 5

1 2

1 1

2 2

5 5

dislike formal

variable content informal

5 5

4 3

3 3

5 5

4 5

1 2

1 1

2 2

5 specific content 5 formal

equipment dynamic medium

1 1

5 4

1 2

2 4

4 5

3 3

5 3

5 5

1 no equipment 1 static medium

self-organised learners at different times

2 3

4 5

3 5

2 1

5 5

1 1

1 2

4 5

5 staff-organised 5 learners all at same time

small group learners at different times

1 3

2 5

4 5

1 1

5 5

1 1

3 2

4 5

5 large group 5 learners all at same time

flexible informal

2 5

4 3

2 3

5 5

4 5

1 2

1 1

3 2

5 5

involvement informal

3 5

3 3

1 3

2 5

4 5

1 2

1 1

2 2

5 remoteness 5 formal

rigid formal

100 90 80 70 60 50 film seminar informal interaction library lecture programmed text practical tutorial video tape

Figure 9.19 Comparison of two grids with “the same” elements to match constructs.

have changed or because their construct system has changed? There is a fundamental uncertainty underlying such questions but it is often resolved tacitly without the realization that there are other choices. Similar considerations apply to the matching of constructs from different people construing the “same elements” in order to investigate the use of different terms for the same distinction (Shaw and Gaines, 1989). If we assume two grids contain constructs based on construing the same elements it is simple to compute the best match in the second grid for each construct in the first grid and display it as shown in Figure 9.19. If all the constructs have reasonably good matches then the two people can anticipate the distinctions the other will make, even if the terms they use are different, and hence they may have a meaningful social interaction in the domain under consideration – Kelly’s sociality corollary (Kelly, 1955, p. 95). The element plot indicates that, notwithstanding this mutual construing, they may still have some difficulty communicating about some of the elements. The same considerations apply to the analysis of sets of grids. Shaw’s (1980) use in her SocioGrids algorithms of what have come to

Computer-aided Constructivism

217

been called Procrustean analysis techniques (Gower and Dijksterhuis, 2004) to select what construct in one grid can be best fitted to one in another grid construing the same elements is meaningful only to the extent that the elements are in some sense “the same.” Shaw’s technique for the extraction of a consensus construct network from multiple grids by first selecting best matches and then filtering out those that have the best average match across all grids creates a consensus or mode grid that is robust against some degree of variation in the meaning of the supposedly “same” elements. The outcome being a grid of actual constructs that can be traced back to their sources makes the analysis more meaningful than the statistically constructed grids produced by a general-purpose Procrustes analysis package not targeted on grid data. Experimenting with excluding grids that are outliers in the socionets produced can also provide insights into the factors affecting the consensus. It should be noted that these are not issues created by the use of computer programs. The problem of cross-calibrating meanings is a fundamental one for any human community, and the issues faced in providing computer support just make explicit what is usually tacit. The value of computer tools is not that they “solve” the problem, but that they make explicit issues of communication and provide a framework in which to discuss them and investigate their sources and impact. Discussion by those involved supported by exploratory re-analyses with computer tools can make more meaningful the communication processes of a group of people with common interests. These issues of commonality of meaning are also important for those conducting studies of the construct systems of others since, if they attempt to interpret the networks or grids themselves, they are putting themselves in the exchange situation, attempting to match the terminology of others to their own. Even when elements are thought to be highly public, such as well-known products in a market research survey, it is possible for subjects to be thinking of different aspects of their use, and even when the terms for construct poles appear to be obvious colloquial phrases the intended meaning may not be at all transparent.

Conclusions We have attempted in this chapter to provide bridges between Kelly’s formulation of personal construct psychology and its representation in

218

Personal Construct Methodology

semantic networks and conceptual grids. After having spent over thirty years developing and making available computer-based tools to support personal construct psychology, we are concerned that these tools are readily detached from their roots and used outside a constructivist context. They are easily used and produce impressive output, and yet the effectiveness of that use and the interpretation of that output is highly dependent on those using them adopting a constructivist stance to all aspects of the activity. This includes everyone involved in the study. End-users of PCP tools should not be construed as “subjects” in the classical sense of the word but as fellow human beings engaged in elaborating their meaning systems in the ways that we all do, and cannot avoid, or be prevented from doing. There is, and should be, a payback from being part of a grid elicitation and interpretation process with the currency being new personal insights, reflections on one’s construct system, its origins, relations to those of others, and so on. Constructivist studies must factor this into their design, that they do not leave their “subjects” unchanged, and that the “data collected” is a snapshot of a process not a static measurement of a stable system. This is the psychological equivalent of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum physics, that the “observer” cannot leave the system unchanged. It is an effect in most investigations of human activity, but it is a particularly profound effect when the tools used intrinsically provoke reflection on ones personal construct system. Returning to the methodological issues of the second section of this chapter, if we had one grand recommendation for addressing all of them it would be to apply constructivist methods to your entire study, not just use them within the study itself. We have used constructivist methods supported by computer tools to facilitate the creative processes of research students (Shaw, 1994; Shaw and Gaines, 1998) and professional research teams (Gaines and Shaw, 1994; Gaines, 2003) in a wide range of disciplines. Your own construct network, those of your collaborators, those of the disciplinary area, those of assessors such as referees, examiners, journal editors, journal readers, funding agencies, and so on, all play important roles in the study. Studying them using the methods you will be using in the study can have a major impact in focusing the study, making more effective use of resources, and achieving more with greater value. We have also found concept mapping and semantic network tools to be complementary to repertory grid tools and generally use both in most studies, moving freely back and forth between them to engage those

Computer-aided Constructivism

219

involved in the study as much and as fluidly as possible. We see less use of network representations in PCP studies than is appropriate, and hope that this article encourages their more widespread use.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to Bob Green for his perceptive comments which helped us improve this chapter.

Access to software and related articles WebGrid is available at http://gigi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca:2000 Rep 5 is available at http://repgrid.com Relevant papers and reports are available http://cpsc.ucalgary.ca/ gaines/reports/

References Ashby, W.R. (1946) Dynamics of the cerebral cortex: the behavioural properties of systems in equilibrium. American Journal of Psychology, 59, 682–686. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., et al. (eds) (2003). The Description Logic Handbook, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barsalou, L.W. (1992) Frames, concepts and conceptual fields, in Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (eds A. Lehrer and E.F. Kittay), L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 21–74. Bartlett, F.C. (1932) Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bo€er, S.E. (1974) Cluster-concepts and sufficiency definitions. Philosophical Studies, 26, 119–125. Boisvert, R.D. (1988) Dewey’s Metaphysics, Fordham University Press, New York. Boose, J.H. (1984) Personal Construct Theory and the Transfer of Human Expertise. Proceedings AAAI-84, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 27–33. Colby, K.M. (1981) Modeling a paranoid mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–560. Collins, A.M. and Quillian, M.R. (1969) Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247. Danto, A. (1964) The artworld. Journal of Philosophy, 61, 571–584. Davis, M., Logemann, G., and Loveland, D. (1962) A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the ACM, 5, 394–397.

220

Personal Construct Methodology

Dewey, J. (1911) Causation, in A Cyclopedia of Education (ed. P. Monroe), Dewey Middle Works 6, Macmillan, New York, p. 381. Dewey, J. (1917) The need for a recovery of philosophy, in Creative Intelligence, Essays in the Pragmatic Attitude (ed. J. Dewey), Henry Holt, New York, pp. 3–69. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think, Heath, New York. de Duve, T. (1991) Pictorial Nominalism: On Marcel Duchamp’s Passage from Painting to the Readymade. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Fillmore, C.J. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254. Fillmore, C.J. (2003) Double-decker definitions: the role of frames in meaning explanations. Sign Language Studies, 3, 263–295. Gaines, B.R. (1994) The collective stance in modeling expertise in individuals and organizations. International Journal of Expert Systems, 7, 21–51. Gaines, B.R. (2003) Organizational knowledge acquisition, in Handbook on Knowledge Management: 1 (ed. C.W. Holsapple), Springer, Berlin, pp. 317–347. Gaines, B.R. (2009) Designing visual languages for description logics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 18, 217–250. Gaines, B.R. and Shaw, M.L.G. (1993) Basing knowledge acquisition tools in personal construct psychology. Knowledge Engineering Review, 8, 49–85. Gaines, B.R. and Shaw, M.L.G. (1994) Using Knowledge Acquisition and Representation Tools to Support Scientific Communities. AAAI’94: Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, California, pp. 707–714. Gaut, B. (2000) “Art” as a cluster concept, in Theories of Art Today (ed. N. Carroll), University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, pp. 25–44. Gaut, B. (2005) The cluster account of art defended. British Journal of Aesthetics, 45, 273–288. Gower, J. (1966) Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika, 53, 325–338. Gower, J.C. and Dijksterhuis, G.B. (2004) Procrustes Problems, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Harnad, S. (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335–346. Hull, C.L. (1940) Mathematico-Deductive Theory of Rote Learning: A Study in Scientific Methodology, Yale University Press, New Haven. Hume, D. (1888) A Treatise of Human Nature, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York. Kelly, G.A. (1963) Aldous: the personable computer, in Computer Simulation of Personality (eds S.S. Tomkins and S. Messick), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 221–229. Kelly, G.A. (1969a) Humanistic methodology in psychological research. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 9, 53–65.

Computer-aided Constructivism

221

Kelly, G.A. (1969b) A mathematical approach to psychology, in Clinical Psychology and Personality: The Selected Papers of George Kelly (ed. B. Maher), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 94–113. Kelly, G.A. (1970) A brief introduction to personal construct theory, in Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (ed. D. Bannister), Academic Press, London, pp. 1–29. Kulp, C.B. (1992) The End of Epistemology: Dewey and His Current Allies on the Spectator Theory of Knowledge, Greenwood, Westport, CN. Lehmann, F. (1992) Semantic networks. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 23, 1–50. Minsky, M. (1974) A Framework for Representing Knowledge, MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306, Boston. Pecher, D. and Zwaan, R.A. (2005) Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking, Cambridge University Press, New York. Piaget, J. (1985) The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem of Intellectual Development, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Quastler, H. (1955) Information Theory in Psychology: Problems and Methods, Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Quillian, M.R. (1967) Word concepts: a theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behavioral Science, 12, 410–430. Ranganathan, S.R. (1933) Colon Classification, The Madras Library Association, Madras. Rorty, R. (1982) Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays, 1972–1980, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., and Bigelow, J. (1943) Behavior, purpose and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10, 18–24. Russell, B. (1905) On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493. Shaw, M.L.G. (1978) Interactive computer programs for eliciting personal models of the world, in Personal Construct Psychology 1977 (ed. F. Fransella), Academic Press, London, pp. 59–67. Shaw, M.L.G. (1980) On Becoming a Personal Scientist: Interactive Computer Elicitation of Personal Models of the World. Academic Press, London. Shaw, M.L.G. (1994) Women, scholarship and information technology: A postmodern perspective. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 5, 113–131. Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1983) A Computer Aid to Knowledge Engineering. Proceedings of British Computer Society Conference on Expert Systems, British Computer Society, Cambridge, pp. 263–271. Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1989) Comparing conceptual structures: consensus, conflict, correspondence and contrast. Knowledge Acquisition, 1, 341–363.

222

Personal Construct Methodology

Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1998) A research-based masters program in the workplace. Proceedings of WCCCE’98: Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education. Shook, J.R. (2000) Dewey’s Empirical Theory of Knowledge and Reality, Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville. Slater, P., ed. (1976) Dimensions of Intrapersonal Space: Vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, London. Slater, P.ed. (1977). Dimensions of Intrapersonal Space: Vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, London. Taddeo, M. and Floridi, L. (2005) Solving the symbol grounding problem: a critical review of fifteen years of research. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 17, 419–445. Weitz, M. (1977) The Opening Mind: A Philosophical Study of Humanistic Concepts. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Weizenbaum, J. (1966) ELIZA – a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Journal of the ACM, 9, 36–45. Yorke, M. (2001) Bipolarity . . . or not? Some conceptual problems relating to bipolar rating scales. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 171–186.

10

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales1 Linda L. Viney and Peter Caputi Researchers adopting a personal construct psychology framework have access to a variety of techniques and methodologies (for example, selfcharacterizations) that generate qualitative data. There are several strategies for summarizing and analysing such data. One approach is to derive quantitative measures, which reflect the salient features of the qualitative material, which are psychometrically sound and empirically based. Using content analysis scales achieves this goal. In this chapter we present content analysis scales that are embedded with a constructivist framework: the Origin and Pawn Scales, the Positive Affect Scale, the Sociality Scales, the Content Analysis Scales of Psychosocial Maturity and the Cognitive Anxiety Scale. We describe the steps involved in developing a scale and then deal with the advantages of using the scales and the types of communication to which they can be applied. Each of the scales is described, its psychometrics reviewed, criticisms of the methodology and suggestions about using the scales in a range of research and practice provided. We also have developed Analyse, a computerized transcript scoring program.

Constructing a Content Analysis Scale A content analysis scale provides a quantitative summary of a series of qualitative content analyses. Our particular approach is best understood 1

Reprinted from Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling Research, 34 (2005), 115–126 Ó 2005 The American Counseling Association. Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction authorized without written permission from the American Counseling Association.

Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

224

Personal Construct Methodology

through a description of its construction. Several steps are involved in this process (Viney and Caputi, 2005, pp. 116–117): .

.

. .

. . .

.

Provide a detailed description of the psychological state (for example, anxiety) to be assessed including the dimensions (are you measure state anxiety for example) that make up the psychological state. Determine the unit of analysis to be applied to the script. The unit of analysis applied to the scales described in this chapter was the clause. Grammatically, a clause is a collection of words that has a subject and predicate. For example. “It is sad” is a clause. Specify in detail the content of the verbal communications or cues from which the psychological state is to be inferred. Specify in detail any cues (key words or phrases) used to demonstrate the intensity of the state. Providing details of cues is not required if there is an assumption that the intensity of the psychological state does not change. Once these cues are specified then the scoring weights can be applied to them. Include a Correction Factor taking into account the number of words in the verbal communication provided by participants. Obtain a summary measure such as a total score. If the conceptual underpinning of the state is assumed to be multidimensional then derive relevant subscores. Examine whether the scale score distributions meet the assumptions of normality, and if necessary, use appropriate transformations to adjust the distributions.

Having achieved these steps it is then possible to examine the psychometric properties of the summary measures. The reliability and validity of the scales can be established, and normative data for scales can also be obtained.

Advantages of Using Content Analysis Scales There are a number of advantages to using content analysis scales. First, there are a number of problems associated with asking people to describe their current experience. These include social desirability effects and difficulties associated with describing emotion. These can be minimized

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

225

by content analysing freely provided responses. Second, content analysis makes possible an ethical approach to participants that is honest in that the true purpose of the investigation can be disclosed in full, and provides participants with the opportunity to concentrate on what they perceive to be the salient issues, rather than what the experimenter had assumed to be central (Viney and Caputi, 2005). Third, the use of content analysis ensures that the meanings of participants are paramount, rather than those of the researcher. This is not always the case when using standardized tests where the meanings of the test maker are the focus (Viney, 1988; Viney and Caputi, 2005). Fourth, the results from content analysis scales appear to be less influenced by interviewer characteristics than are other measures (Gottschalk, Lolas, and Viney, 1986). Additionally, the appropriate use of content analysis scales results in quantitative data that can be analyzed statistically, thus providing both a convenient summary of the data as well as a means of testing out hypotheses. Finally these scales can be applied to different kinds of communication, both spoken and written. Viney and Caputi (2005) noted that content analysis can be applied to verbal communication varying from counseling transcripts (Viney, 1994) to suicide notes (Gottschalk and Gleser, 1961).

Sampling Verbal Communication How are verbal communications generated? There are numerous methods for generating verbal data from individuals. Units of communication can be sampled in two ways: by the number of words (e.g., 500 word samples of communications from clients, counsellors or both, in counseling transcripts) or by duration (e.g., five-minute samples of verbal communications). However, a key criterion for generating verbal communications is that the instruction to the individual needs to be sufficiently open-ended to ensure that the respondent can choose from a wide range of meanings. An instruction set provided by Viney et al. (1995) illustrates this criterion: I’d like you to talk to me for a few minutes about your life at the moment – the good things and the bad –what it is like for you. Once you have started, I shall be here listening to you, but I would rather not reply to any questions you may have, until the five minute period is over. Do you have any questions you would like to ask now, before we start?

226

Personal Construct Methodology

The use of words such as “good” and “bad” enable the respondent to explore a range of meaningful experiences.

The Six Personal Construct Based Scales The scales of more positive tones are briefly introduced first, then those of both tones and then finally those with negative tone. The more positive scales were developed first to counteract and extend the earlier-developed content analysis scales of Gottschalk and Gleser based on a psychodynamic perspective including the Total Anxiety, Hostility In, Hostility Out and Ambivalent Hostility Scales (Gottschalk, Lolas, and Viney, 1986). Five of these scales, not including the Sociality Scale, have recently been reviewed (Viney and Caputi, 2005).

Positive tone scales The Origin Scale (Westbrook and Viney, 1980) This scale is scored when people express intention, exertion or trying ability (describing themselves as powerful and successful), overwhelming or influencing others or the environment, or as being a cause or origin. The Positive Affect Scale (Westbrook, 1976) The expression of generally good feelings is the focus of this scale. Four types of such statements are scored: directly expressed positive affect, descriptions of situations or events that imply that experience, descriptions of others that imply that experience, and statements that imply that experience. The Sociality Scales (Viney and Westbrook, 1979) These scales assess four types of positive social relationships, and three types of roles. These relationships are: solidarity, intimacy, influence and shared relationships. The roles are: themselves as sole reactors, as sole initiators and as relationships experienced with others as either reactors or initiators.

Positive and negative tones The Content Analysis Scales to measure Psychosocial Maturity (CASPM) (Viney and Tych, 1985; Viney et al., 1995) These scales assess the constructs used by people at different phases of development across the

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

227

Table 10.1 CASPM subscales. Integrity (“I am the life I have chosen to live”) Generativity (“I am a source of creation and construction”) Identity (“I am myself, the same me I was yesterday and will be tomorrow”) Affinity (“I enjoy myself when I am with others”) Industry (“I am what I can learn”) Initiative (“I can be what I imagine I shall be”) Autonomy (“I can be what I want to be”) Trust (“I am what I am given”)

vs. vs. vs.

vs. vs. vs. vs. vs.

Despair (“I reject my life, and I am not content with it”) Stagnation (“Nothing good will ever come from me”) Identity Confusion (“I am not sure who I am”) Isolation (“I don’t enjoy myself when I am with others; I feel left out”) Inferiority (“I will never be any good”) Hesitancy (“I don’t know if I can be what I imagine I shall be”) Constraint (“I cannot be what I want to be”) Mistrust (“I cannot be what I am given, because that may be taken away”)

life span (following the observations of Erikson, 1959). Two opposing sets of constructs are described for each of the eight scales, corresponding to Erikson’s bipolar ego developmental tasks (see Table 10.1), with the positively toned ones indicating mastery of the tasks of each phase given first. The development of the later, more mature, qualities is based on those that came before.

Negative tone scales The Pawn Scale (Westbrook and Viney, 1980) This scale is scored when people express lack of intention, do not try to bring about an occurrence, show lack of ability (describing themselves as powerless, incapable, a failure), being controlled, forced, prevented, at the mercy of other forces, or as a pawn. The Cognitive Anxiety Scale (Viney and Westbrook, 1976) Cognitive anxiety, or uncertainty, is a particularly personal construct concept, relating to Kelly’s (1955/1991) definition as the awareness that the situation or event one is confronting is outside the range of convenience

228

Personal Construct Methodology

of one’s construct system. This scale is scored when this anxiety is experienced by themselves and others, or denied, as a result of: novel stimuli, extra constructs being needed, incongruous stimuli, unavailable responses, or a high rate of stimulus presentation. In a recent review, Viney and Caputi (2005) discussed the conceptual roots of these content analysis scales, and demonstrated how they are grounded in Personal Construct Psychology. For instance, notions of uncertainty and inability to make predictions are important emphases in Kelly’s theory which he links to a constructivist interpretation of anxiety. Viney and Caputi (2005) highlight that these Personal Construct Psychology based ideas provide a conceptual foundation for the Cognitive Anxiety Scale.

A Review of Psychometric Properties Like any quantitative scales, the extent to which the content analysis scales presented in this chapter can be considered as appropriate and useful is determined in part by an examination of the psychometric properties of these scales. In this section we briefly review the evidence for their reliability and validity.

Evidence of reliability There is a growing body of research that provides support for the reliability of the content analysis scales. Research provides evidence for inter-rater reliability, internal consistency and retest reliability of these scales. In this context we are assessing the reliability of the total scores for a scale, not agreement on individual clauses used in the determination of those scores. Table 10.2 provides the interrater reliability (level of agreement based on correlations between two raters) for the scales. The average coefficient represents the arithmetic mean of several coefficients when more than one has been obtained in one or more studies. Based on these data, there is support for interrater agreement for these content analysis scales, with average coefficients exceeding .90. That said, caution is needed when interpreting these findings. The estimates reported in Table 10.2 are based on correlations, and as such, may not provide the best method for estimating interrater reliability. Future studies are needed to replicate these findings using other methods (such as intra-class correlation or

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

229

Table 10.2 Reported inter-rater reliability estimates for the content analysis scales. Scale

Average coefficient

Range of coefficients

0.92 0.93 0.96

0.91–0.94 0.92–0.96 0.95–0.97

Westbrook and Viney (1980) Westbrook (1976) Viney and Westbrook (1979)

0.91

0.81–0.95

Viney and Tych (1985)

0.96

0.71–0.99

Viney and Westbrook (1976)

0.90

0.87–0.93

Westbrook and Viney (1980)

Positive tone Origin Positive Affect Sociality Both tones Psychosocial Maturity Negative tone Cognitive Anxiety Pawn

Reference

Krippendorff’s alpha reliability estimate for judgments (see Hayes and Krippendorff (2007)) of assessing interrater reliability. Limited evidence is available for the internal consistency of these scales (see Table 10.3). This type of reliability is less relevant for single content analysis scales. In sets of scales it becomes more important. It is useful to Table 10.3 Reports on the internal consistency of the content analysis scales. Scale Positive tone Origin Positive affect Sociality

Both tones Psychosocial maturity

Evidence on internal consistency

Reference

– – Subscales not significantly intercorrelated and making separate contributions to the total score

Viney and Westbrook (1979)

Subscales not significantly Viney and Tych (1985) intercorrelated, but phaselinked subscales were correlated

Negative tone Cognitive anxiety – Pawn –

230

Personal Construct Methodology

know that both sets of individual Sociality Scales, types of relationships and roles, are independent, so that they can be used together in the same multivariate statistical analyses. The same is true of the 16 Psychosocial Maturity Scales. However it is also useful to know that the pairs of these scales do show intercorrelations e.g., Trust with Mistrust, Autonomy with Constraint, and so on. Viney and Caputi (2005) reported that 88% of these pairs of scales were correlated, but only 21% of the non-pairs were significantly related, thus providing evidence for the reliability of these scales. Evidence of stability of scores over time is presented in Table 10.4. In general, these data show that these content analysis scales are stable. The coefficient for the Origin Scale is low, but this finding is not surprising in that this scale assesses psychological states that are potentially very variable (Viney and Caputi, 2005).

Evidence of validity Details of the validity of the various scales have been established (see Viney and Caputi, 2005) and are summarized in Table 10.5, scale by scale. The Origin Scale scores were found to be positively correlated with other Table 10.4 Reported stability estimates for the content analysis scales. Occasions

Generalizability coefficient

Positive tone Origin

5

0.22


Westbrook and Viney (1980)

Positive affect Sociality

5

0.67

Viney and Westbrook (1979)

2 (2 months)

0.66

Viney and Tych (1985)

2 (6 months)

0.21


5

0.63

5

0.51

Scale

Both tones Psychosocial maturity Negative tone Cognitive anxiety Pawn


For the associated F value for the occasion factor, p < .01.

Reference

Viney and Westbrook (1976) Westbrook and Viney (1980)

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

231

Table 10.5 Reported evidence of validity for the content analysis scales. Scale and Reference Positive tone Origin Westbrook and Viney (1980) Westbrook and Viney (1980) Westbrook and Viney (1980) Westbrook and Viney (1980) Westbrook and Viney (1980) Viney (1981)

Evidence of validity

Independent of gender, age, but correlated with occupational status Significantly correlated with measures of other positively toned states Significantly correlated with other measures of this state Significantly correlated with reported use of appropriate coping strategies Discriminated those who were experiencing controllable events from those who were not Discriminated youth workers from the clients they worked with Viney, Benjamin and Responsive to personal construct therapy for older Preston (1989) people Viney (1990) Responsive to personal construct therapy for people who are ill Viney et al. (1994a) Discriminated psychologically healthy dying from less healthy dying Haugli et al. (2000) Responsive to personal construct therapy for patients with pain Foster and Viney (2001, Responsive to personal construct therapy for women 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009) with menopause difficulties Positive affect Westbrook (1976) Independent of gender, age, but correlated with occupational status Westbrook (1976) Negatively related to measures of negatively toned states Viney and Discriminated women who were moving to a new Bazeley (1977) home from those who were not Viney (1980) Discriminated women who were experiencing childbearing from other events Viney et al. (1994b) Discriminated psychologically healthy dying in cancer patients Viney et al. (1994a) Discriminated good quality of life in palliative care staff (continued)

232

Personal Construct Methodology

Table 10.5 (Continued ) Scale and Reference

Evidence of validity

Viney and Westbrook (1980) Viney, Henry and Campbell (1999) Viney and Henry (2002) Maitland and Viney (2009) Sociality Viney and Westbrook (1979) Viney and Westbrook (1979) Viney and Westbrook (1979) Viney, Westbrook and Preston (1980) Viney (1981)

Discriminated patient with diabetes mellitus from those who do not Responsive to personal construct group work for adolescents

Viney and Westbrook (1982) Viney (1980) Rayner and Viney (2007) Both tones Psychosocial maturity Viney (1987)

Discriminated women who had been sexually assaulted from those who had not Independent of gender, age, occupational status Significantly negatively correlated with negatively toned states Discriminated informants who were maintaining good relationships from those who were not Discriminated drug addicts from those who were not Discriminated youth workers from the clients with whom they worked Predicted good rehabilitation of medical patients Predicted different life stages in women Predicted good mental heath in sailors who experienced life threatening trauma

Discriminated people of different ages, across the lifespan Viney and Tych (1985) Significantly correlated with measures of other positively and negatively toned states, as well as life satisfaction measures, but independent of gender Viney and Tych (1985) Discriminated people of different health and employment status Wang and Viney (1996, Discriminated Australian and Chinese children and 1997) adolescents Viney, Henry and Responsive to psychodynamic and personal construct Campbell (1999) Viney group work for adolescents and Henry (2002)

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

233

Table 10.5 (Continued ) Scale and Reference

Evidence of validity

Grenyer, Viney and Luborsky (1996) Negative tone Pawn Westbrook and Viney (1980) Westbrook and Viney (1980) Westbrook and Viney (1980) Westbrook and Viney (1980) Westbrook and Viney (1980) Viney (1983) Viney and Westbrook (1982) Viney, Benjamin, and Preston (1989) Viney (1990)

Identifies psychotherapy process that predicts helpful change in depressed clients

Cognitive anxiety Viney and Westbrook (1976) Viney and Westbrook (1976) Viney and Westbrook (1976) Viney (1980) Viney (1980) Bunn and Clarke (1979)

Winter (1990) Di Lollo, Manning and Neimeyer (2003)

Independent of sex, age, but correlated with occupational status Significantly correlated with measures of other negatively toned states Significantly correlated with other measures of this state Significantly correlated with appropriate use of coping strategies Discriminated chronically ill from others Discriminated unemployed youth from others Predicted poor rehabilitation of medical patients Responsive to personal construct therapy for older people Responsive to personal construct therapy for people who are ill Independent of sex, age, but correlated with occupational status Significantly correlated with measures of other negatively toned states Significantly correlated with measures of state anxiety, not trait anxiety Discriminated people in situations which were new to them from those who were not in new Discriminated people’s accounts of situations which were unpredictable from those which were not Discriminated relatives’ accounts when waiting for emergency medical patients from those who were not Discriminated reactions in clients and staff to major changes in Psychiatric Services Discriminated people who stuttered from those who did not

234

Personal Construct Methodology

measures of this state, and with other positively-toned measures (Westbrook and Viney, 1980). They discriminated people who were in controllable situations from those who were not, youth workers from their clients (Westbrook and Viney, 1980) and healthy dying from less healthy dying (Viney, Walker, Robertson, et al., 1994b). These scales were found to be independent of gender and age, and related to occupational status, higher scorers having higher status (Westbrook and Viney, 1980). They were also useful in personal construct therapy with people who were ill (Viney, 1990) and older people (Viney, Benjamin, and Preston, 1989). With personal construct group work they predicted gains for people with chronic pain (Haugli et al., 2000), and they have shown similar effects for nursing home staff (Malens et al., 2004). They also showed outcomes for women experiencing difficulties with menopause (Foster and Viney, 2001, 2002a,b, 2005, 2006, 2009). Also independent of gender and age, the Positive Affect Scale scores are related to occupational status, higher scorers having higher status (Westbrook, 1976) They discriminate those who are moving to a new home from those who are not (Westbrook, 1976), patients with diabetes mellitus from those who are well (Viney and Westbrook, 1982) and healthy dying from less healthy dying (Viney, Walker, Bell, et al., 1994a). These scores are negatively related with other measures of this state, and with other positively-toned measures (Westbrook, 1976). They have been shown to be responsive to personal construct group therapy with adolescents who are juvenile offenders (Viney, Henry, and Campbell, 1999; Viney and Henry, 2002) and have also discriminated women who have been assaulted as children from those who have not (Maitland and Viney, 2009). The validity for the other positive set of scales, the Sociality Scales, has also been established (see Viney and Caputi, 2005). They discriminated, again, youth workers from their clients, those who experience good relationships from those who do not (Viney, 1981) and those who are addicted to drugs (Viney, Westbrook, and Preston, 1985). They predicted good rehabilitation in people with chronic illness Viney and Westbrook (1982) and for nursing home staff; they have shown similar effects in relating better to their patients from those who do not (Malens et al., 2004). These scores also predicted good mental health in sailors who have experienced life-threatening trauma (Rayner and Viney, 2007). The scores were also found to be independent of gender, of occupational status (Viney and Westbrook, 1979) and were negatively correlated with other negatively toned measures.

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

235

The validity information given for the Psychosocial Maturity Scales was also impressive. Most striking was the way its different scale scores differentially discriminated people of different ages across the entire lifespan (Viney, 1980). These scores are also positively correlated with other positively toned measures (Viney and Tych, 1985). They discriminate people of different health and employment status, as well as Australian and Chinese children and adolescents (Wang and Viney, 1996). They have been shown to be responsive to personal construct and psychodynamic group work with adolescents (Viney, Henry, and Campbell, 2001; Viney and Henry, 2002). In adults, they identify psychotherapeutic processes that prove to be linked with good outcomes (Grenyer, Viney, and Luborsky, 1996). They are appropriately not related to gender. The validity information for the more negative Pawn Scale was similar to that for its partner, the Origin Scale. Its scores were independent of gender and age, but related to occupational status, higher scorers having lower status (Westbrook and Viney, 1980) They discriminated people who are generally ill from those who are well from those who are not (Viney, 1983); and those with diabetes mellitus from those who are well (Viney and Westbrook 1980). They have also been shown to be responsive to personal construct therapy with people who are ill (Viney, 1990) and older people (Viney, Benjamin, and Preston, 1989). These scores were also positively correlated with other negatively toned measures, and with appropriate coping strategies (Westbrook and Viney, 1980). The validity information for the Cognitive Anxiety Scale showed that scores are independent of gender and age, again related to occupational status, but with lower scorers having lower status (Viney and Westbrook, 1976). They discriminated people who were in situations new to them from those who were not, and people’s accounts of situations that were unpredictable to them from those that were not (Viney, 1980). They also discriminated relatives waiting in emergency situations from those who were not, and those who stuttered from those who did not (Bunn and Clarke, 1979). Scores were high in both patients and staff who were dealing with changes in a Psychiatric Service (Winter, 1990) and discriminated those who stuttered from those who did not (Di Lollo, Manning, and Neimeyer, 2003). In addition, they responded to group work for women who were having problems with menopause (Foster and Viney, 2005, 2006, 2009). These scores were also positively correlated with other negatively toned measures, and with measures of state, not trait, anxiety (Viney, 1980).

236

Personal Construct Methodology

Criticisms of the Content Analysis Scale Methodology All content analysis scales are limited in at least six ways. First, they are based purely on verbal and ignore extraverbal cues, such as “ums” and sighs, only dealing with conscious, verbalized experiences. Second, they can be developed only if the psychological state to be measured is clearly conceptualized, so that criteria and scoring examples can be devised. Third, they should not be applied to verbal communications from people who cannot adequately express themselves in the language being used. Translations of the existing scales have been made. The usual criterion of back translation, into Mandarin Chinese in the Peoples’ Republic of China, has been applied successfully (Wang and Viney, 1996, 1997), but there are still likely to have been problems of communication. Fourth, while these scale scores show none of the normative differences we have observed for some other content analysis scales in Englishspeaking countries, such as the USA, Britain and Australia, they cannot be assumed to tap into concepts and experiences represented in the languages of other cultures. Fifth, in their application, they can be time-consuming. Finally, they can require extra resources for the training of users.

A New Computerized Scoring System for Analyzing Content Analysis Scales These content analysis scales can be applied in assessment, outcome and processes in psychotherapy, counseling, health, community, and organizational psychology, providing a wide range of uses. In this section we describe Analyse, a Windows-based transcript scoring system. Analyse is a simple tool for analysing and scoring transcripts using the content analysis scales described in this chapter. Although it was designed originally for use with the CASPM scale, Analyse is expandable and can incorporate new scoring systems as they are developed. Analyse allows you to read in a text file, define the clauses within the file, and then score the clauses according to the different scales. Figure 10.1 illustrates what Analyse looks like when it is running. There are four sections: (a) the menu/scoring system section: you can see the File and the Scoring menu on the left, and a drop down list labeled “Current Rating System” on the right;

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

237

Figure 10.1 Snapshot of Analyse.

(b) the text window: in this window your text is displayed for you to edit and rate; (c) the instructions/command button section: below the text window you will find instructions relevant to what you should be doing in the program; (d) the rating options section: contains the rating options for the current scoring system. The program allows the user to parse the text into clauses, and then rate those clauses according to content analysis scale chosen for analysis. After rating clauses, Analyse will calculate the actual scores for the chosen scale. Figure 10.2 demonstrates an output window a scale. At the top of the window in Figure 10.2 you will see a word count and a scaling factor. The scaling factor is calculated as: factor ¼

100 word count

238

Personal Construct Methodology

Figure 10.2 Output window.

The first column of the output window contains the names of the ratings for the current rating system. The second column contains the weight of the ratings. The third column contains the number of times a clause of that rating occurred in the document (based on the ratings you selected). The final score is calculated by the formula: score ¼ ðscaling factor=2Þ þ scaling factor absolute value of ðfreq:  weightÞ Depending on the scale, the final score is either the square root or the natural log (ln) of this value. In the case of CASPM, the square root is taken. If you consider the Generativity subscale in Figure 10.2 we have: score final score

¼ ð2=2Þ þ 2
ð1
7Þ ¼ 15 ¼ square root of 15 ¼ 3:87

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

239

Analyse can be run on Windows 95 or better systems. The program is not particularly resource or memory-intensive when running with other Windows-based programs.

Conclusions Capturing meanings in verbal data from individuals is an important methodology in personal construct psychology. In this chapter, we have discussed six content analysis scales that are conceptually compatible with personal construct theory. We have reported on the psychometric properties of these scales and shown how they can be applied to a wide range of psychological tasks and situations. We have also presented a description of Analyse, a computerized scoring system for the six Australian content analysis scales. We encourage people to consider the use of content analysis scales in their research and practice.

References Bunn, T.A. and Clarke, A.M. (1979) Crisis intervention: an experimental study of the effects of a brief period of counselling on the anxiety of relatives of patients of seriously ill or injured hospital patients. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 191–195. Child, I. (1976) Humanistic Psychology and the Research Tradition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. De Charms, R. (1968) Personal Causation, Academic Press, New York. Di Lollo, A., Manning, W.H. and Neimeyer, R.A. (2003) Cognitive anxiety as a function of speaker role for fluent speakers and persons who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 28, 167–187. Epstein, S. (1972) Towards a unified theory of anxiety, in Progress in Experimental Personality Research (ed. B.A. Maher), Academic Press, New York. Erikson, E.H. (1959) Growth and crises in the healthy personality. Psychological Issues, 1, 50–100. Foster, H. and Viney, L.L. (2001) Menopause: the art of change. 14th International Personal Construct Congress, Wollongong Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 99. Foster, H. and Viney, L.L. (2002) Predicting the “change of life”: wellness or weariness. 10th Australasian Personal Construct Conference. Sydney, Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 54, 3.

240

Personal Construct Methodology

Foster, H. and Viney, L.L. (2005) Personal construct workshops for women experiencing menopause: validation of non-verbal, preverbal and verbal construing and reconstruction, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychotherapy (eds D. Winter and L.L. Viney), Whurr, London. Foster, H. and Viney, L.L. (2006) Menopause: the art of change, in Personal Construct Psychology: New Ideas (eds P. Caputi, H. Foster and L.L. Viney), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Foster, H. and Viney, L.L. (2009) Changing Lives: Processes of change in menopause workshops, in Personal Constructivism: Theory and Application (eds L.M. Leitner, J.C. Thomas), Pace University Press, New York. Gottschalk, L.A. and Gleser, G.C. (1961) An analysis of suicide notes. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 30, 195–204. Gottschalk, L.A., Lolas, F. and Viney, L.L. (1986) Content Analysis of Verbal Behavior: Significance in Clinical Medicine and Psychiatry, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Grenyer, B., Viney, L.L. and Luborsky, L. (1996) Changes in psychosocial maturity levels in therapy for depression linked with interpersonal mastery. 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, Florida, US. Haugli, L, Steen, E.R., Laerum, E., et al. (2000) Agency orientation and chronic musculoskeletal pain: effects of a group learning program based on personal construct theory. Clinical Journal of Pain, 16. 281–289. Hartley, D. (1994) Assessing psychological developmental level, in Psychodynamic Treatment Research (eds N.E. Miller, Luborsky, J.P. Barber, and J. Doherty), Basic Books, New York. Hubble, M.A., Duncan, B.L., and Miller, S.D. (eds) (2000) The Heart and Soul of Change, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Henry, R.M., Viney, L.L. and Campbell, J. (1995) An evaluation of psychodynamic and personal construct preventions of HIV risk taking. Proceedings of the Fifth HIV/AIDS and Society Conference, Macquarie University, Sydney. Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York. Lazarus, R.S. (1968) Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, McGraw Hill, New York. McReynolds, P. (1962) Exploratory behaviour: a theoretical interpretation. Psychological Reports, 19, 311–318. Maitland, H. and Viney, L.L. (2009) Disclosing childhood assault in close relationships: meanings and emotions women associate with those experiences and their lives now. Personal Constructs, Theory and Practice, 5, 149–164. Malens, G., Couchman, L., Viney, L.L. and Grenyer, B. (2004) Time to talk: evaluation of the effects of staff/resident quality time on staff perception of control and relationships in an aged care facility. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53. 107.

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

241

Maslow, A.H. (1956) Philosophy of psychology, in Personal Problems and Psychological Frontiers (ed. J. Fairchild), Sheridan, New York. Metcalfe, C., Winter, D. and Viney, L.L. (2007) The effectiveness of personal construct psychotherapy in clinical practice. Psychotherapy Research, 17(4), 431–442. Nagy, S. (1998) A comparison of the effects of patients’ pain on nurses working in burns and neonatal intensive care unit. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 335–340. Neimeyer, R.A. and Mahoney, M.J. (1995) Constructivism in Psychotherapy, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Neimeyer, R.A. and Raskin, J. (2000) Constructions of Disorder, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Rayner, S. and Viney, L.L. (2007) Maintaining mental health in the face of trauma. 17th International Personal Construct Psychology Congress, Brisbane, Australia. Rotter, J.B. (1966) Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28. Seligman, M. (1975) Helplessness, Freeman, San Francisco. Seligman, M. and Csikszentmhalyi, M. (2000) Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. Viney, L.L. (1980) Transitions, Cassell, Sydney, Australia. Viney, L.L. (1981) An evaluation of an Australian youth work program. Youth and Society, 14, 447–454. Viney, L.L. (1983) Psychological reactions of young people to unemployment. Australian Psychologist, 16, 37–47; Human Development, 30, 125–136. Viney, L.L. (1987) A sociophenomenological approach to lifespan development complementing Erikson’s psychodynamic approach, Human Development, 30, 125–136. Viney, L.L. (1988) Dare we develop a constructivist psychology? International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 103–106. Viney, L.L. (1990) A constructivist model of psychological reactions to illness and injury, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology (eds G.J. and R.A. Neimeyer), JAI Press, New York. Viney, L.L. (1994) Sequences of emotion expressed by clients and acknowledged by therapists. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 469–481. Viney, L.L. (1998) Should we use personal construct therapy? A paradigm for outcomes evaluation. Psychotherapy, 35, 366–388. Viney, L.L. and Bazeley, P. (1977) The affective responses of housewives to community relocation. Journal of Community Psychology, 5, 37–45. Viney, L.L., Benjamin, Y.N., and Preston, C. (1989) An evaluation of personal construct therapy for the elderly, British Journal of Medical Psychology, 62, 35–41.

242

Personal Construct Methodology

Viney, L.L. and Caputi, P. (2005) The origin and pawn, positive affect, psychosocial maturity and cognitive affect scales: Using them in counselling research. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling Research, 34, 115–112. Viney, L.L. and Henry, R.M. (2002) Evaluating personal construct and psychodynamic group work with adolescent offenders and non-offenders. In G.J. Neimeyer and R.A. Neimeyer (eds.), Advances in personal construct psychology, vol. 4, New York: JAI Press. Viney, L.L., Henry, R.M. and Campbell, J. (2001) The impact of group work on adolescent offenders. Journal of Counselling and Development, 48, 217–240. Viney, L.L., Metcalfe, C., and Winter, D. (2005) A meta-analysis of studies of the outcomes of personal construct psychotherapy, in Personal Construct Psychotherapy: Advances in Theory, Practice and Research (eds D.A. Winter and L.L. Viney), Whurr, London. Viney, L.L., Rudd, M., Grenyer, B. and Tych, A.M. (1995) Content Analysis Scales for Psychosocial Maturity: A Scoring Manual, University of Wollongong, Wollongong. Viney, L.L. and Tych, A.M. (1985) Content analysis scales to measure psychosocial maturity in the elderly. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 311–317. Viney, L.L., Walker, B.M., Bell, P., et al. (1994a) The quality of life of palliative care staff: A personal construct approach. Omega, 28, 201–217. Viney, L.L., Walker, B.M., Robertson, T., et al. (1994b) Dying in palliative care units and in hospital: The quality of life of terminal cancer patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 157–165. Viney, L.L. and Westbrook, M.T. (1976) Cognitive anxiety: A method of content analysis for verbal samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 140–150. Viney, L.L. and Westbrook, M.T. (1979) Sociality: A content analysis scale for verbalizations. Social Behaviour and Personality, 7, 129–137. Viney, L.L. and Westbrook, M.T. (1980) Psychological states in patients with diabetes mellitus, in Content Analysis of Verbal Behaviour in Clinical Medicine (eds L.A. Gottchalk, F. Lolas, and L.L. Viney), Springer Verlag, Berlin. Viney, L.L. and Westbrook, M.T. (1982) Patient’s psychological reactions to illness: are they associated with rehabilitation? Journal of Applied Rehabilitation, 13, 38–44. Viney, L.L., Westbrook, M.T., and Preston, C. (1980) Some sources of alienation in drug addicts, in Content Analysis of Verbal Behaviour in Clinical Medicine (eds L.A. Gottchalk, F. Lolas, and L.L. Viney), Springer Verlag, Berlin. Viney, L.L., Westbrook, M.T., and Preston, C. (1985) The addiction experience as a function of the addict’s history. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 73–82. Wang, W. and Viney, L.L. (1996) A cross-cultural comparison of Eriksonian psychosocial development: Chinese and Australian children. School Psychology International, 17, 33–48.

Using Constructivist-oriented Content Analysis Scales

243

Wang, W. and Viney, L.L. (1997) The psychosocial development of children and adolescents in the People’s Republic of China: An Eriksonian approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 139–153. Westbrook, M.T. (1976) Positive affect: A method of content analysis for verbal samples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 715–719. Westbrook, M.T. and Viney, L.L. (1980) Perceptions of self as origin and pawn measured by content analysis scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 157–166. Winter, D.A. (1990) Therapeutic alternatives for psychological disorders: personal construct investigations in a health service setting, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology (eds G.J. Neimeyer and R.A. Neimeyer), JAI Press, New York. Winter, D.A. (1992) Using Personal Construct Psychology in Clinical Settings, Routledge, London.

Part IV

Methods in Counseling and Clinical Settings

11

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy: A Constructivist Approach Luis Botella and Mar
ıa G
amiz The Narrative Construction of Identity Imagine that you come to a point in your life when it becomes really important for you to be sure of who you are and what kind of life you have had. Maybe you are reviewing your life because you feel the end is near, as in the song ‘My Way’, made famous by Frank Sinatra, or, less dramatically, you are facing a transition in your life course and need to make sure that the path you are about to take for your future is coherent with the ones you have taken in the past. Maybe you are beginning a new relationship, perhaps a psychotherapeutic one, and need to make sense to your new partner, or to your therapist. In any case, you are facing one of the most important questions in one’s life: who am I? If you try to answer this question even for a moment (and who has not?) you will probably notice that you come up with a combination of factual information (34 years old, a Sales Manager, divorced with two children . . .), personal constructs (easy going, friendly, social, mostly happy . . .), third person perceptions (her friends consider her easy to get along with . . .), and even desired futures or possible selves (I have always dreamt of owning a yacht, I wish I was more attractive to women . . .). Beyond the mere description of the character, you are also likely to find yourself looking for episodes that validate such constructs (I remember how difficult it was for me to make new friends when I was a teenager, and I guess that’s why I’ve

Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

248

Personal Construct Methodology

always thought of myself as an introvert and have always looked for long lasting relationships with a few intimate friends). It is obvious that what you are doing while you make an effort to answer your existential question is to construct a narrative using your life experience as the raw material. However, the relationship between life and narrative may not be as simple as that. Mook (1992) reminds us that life stories are lived when they are told, and are told when they are lived. Thus, once you “choose” to tell your story in terms of social rejection, constructs such as introvert or lonely become more salient, and more coherent. Also, if you have suffered many subjectively significant episodes of social rejection, your narrative choice is somewhat logical-but remember that there are always alternatives to one’s own dominant stories. Thus, as discussed in a previous work (Neimeyer, Herrero, and Botella, 2006) viewed through a broadly constructivist lens, one’s sense of self can be seen as a narrative achievement (Neimeyer and Levitt, 2001a). Specifically, people are seen as constructing meaning of their life experiences by punctuating the seamless flow of events and organizing them according to recurrent themes (Kelly, 1955/1991), which in turn scaffold the “plot” of one’s life story, and confer on it a modicum of consistency over time (Neimeyer, 2000). Technically, the self-narrative has been defined as “an overarching cognitive-affective-behavioral structure that organizes the ‘micro-narratives’ of everyday life into a ‘macro-narrative’ that consolidates our self-understanding, establishes our characteristic range of emotions and goals, and guides our performance on the stage of the social world” (Neimeyer, 2004, pp. 53–54). Like all other significant aspects of human development, it emerges epigenetically from the co-action of multiple levels of systemic organization, ranging from the biogenetic, through the personal-agentic, to the dyadic-relational, and ultimately to the cultural-linguistic (Mascolo, Craig-Bray, and Neimeyer, 1997). At a biogenetic level, self-narratives are anchored in broadly distributed neurological structures that subserve autobiographical memory and narrative reasoning (Rubin and Greenberg, 2003). Almost every brain system is involved in this process to a greater or lesser extent (see Cozolino, 2002, for a detailed review). On the one hand, implicit learning and memory (especially during childhood) contribute to the lifelong power of automatic schemas that pattern our perception of the life events in our narratives (Liggan and Kay, 1999; Siegel, 1999), priming retrieval of certain memories as a function of the sensorial cortex and emotional states regulated by the amygdala

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

249

(see Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessell, 1991). On the other hand, explicit memory involves the medial temporal lobe, whose storage entails the long-term potentiation of neurons in the hippocampus and cortex (Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessell, 1991). The process of cortical consolidation turns these meaningful memories into permanent ones as they are differentiated and integrated into our deeply felt sense of personal and social identity. Emotion and the limbic system regulate the entire process due to their powerful appraisal role, as both left hemispheric language skills and right hemispheric spatio-temporal processes contribute to an articulated and well-formed self-narrative. Finally, the integrative functions of the orbitofrontal cortex provide critical coordination of social cognition, emotion, meaning construction and action planning (Siegel, 2001). At a personal-agentic level, the self-narrative provides a means of assimilating experience into existing structures of meaning. Thus, although narrative development cannot be said to become more “true” in an objective sense over time, it does tend toward greater adaptation, in the sense of representing an ever more complex resource for organizing emotionally relevant experiences and for negotiating the social world (Guidano, 1991). At a dyadic-relational level, self-narratives provide the scaffolding for interpersonal accounts of our experience, whether in the form of descriptions of the events of our day to a family member when we return home from work, or anguished attempts to winnow meaning from problematic life stories told in the presence of a psychotherapist (Harvey, 2000; Neimeyer and Levitt, 2001). Moreover, social behavior is often motivated by the attempt to recruit audiences for a (selective) performance of the selfnarrative, underscoring the extent to which such life scripts are enacted, and not merely recounted, in the presence of others (Goffman, 1959). Of course, these living narrations are not solipsistic in origin, but instead represent the dialogical appropriation of the “voices” of others into the self (Bakhtin, 1981; Hermans and Dimaggio, 2004); we come to see our selves in part as we are seen. In this sense the self-narrative, however personal, is always extensively “co-authored” by relevant others. And finally, at a cultural-linguistic level, self-narratives represent importations of the themes, roles, and discourses available in a given culture, for better or worse (Burr, 1995; Neimeyer, 1998). Because any given life is lived at the intersection of many competing group memberships and (sub)cultural matrixes, the resulting identity options are virtually

250

Personal Construct Methodology

guaranteed to be multiplistic and contradictory (Efran and Cook, 2000), and the narrated self socially “saturated” and less than fully coherent (Gergen, 1991). As a consequence, even under favorable circumstances, a tendency toward narrative coherence operates as a system principle that is never fully achieved.

Relational Constructivism and Self-Narratives What we call relational constructivism (Botella, 2001; Botella and Herrero, 2000) constitutes our attempt to press the dialogue between constructivism and social constructionism further (see Botella, 1995) and to enrich it with the voice of narrative and postmodern approaches. What follows, then, is a brief outline of the 10 main assumptions of relational constructivism in our present conceptualization of it. 1. Being human entails construing meaning. From a constructivist standpoint, human psychological processes can be equated to “efforts after meaning” (Bartlett, 1932). Human beings are proactively oriented toward a meaningful understanding of the world in which they live and their own place in it. Being human entails active efforts to interpret experience, seeking purpose and significance in the events that surround us (Neimeyer and Neimeyer, 1993). 2. Meaning is an interpretative and linguistic achievement. Experiences in themselves do not carry meaning. To render the otherwise “purposeless drift” (Efran, Lukens, and Lukens, 1990) of life events meaningful and more or less predictable, we need to pattern them, to find similarities and contrasts between them, and to place them in unfolding frames of intelligibility, that is, to interpret them. 3. Language and interpretations are relational achievements. As discussed among others by Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953), language is not the private property of any particular individual’s cognitive processes but a form of game we play together, that is, the relational product of shared discursive practices and joint actions. Our interpretations of experience are patterned by and located in the context of shared forms of intelligibility. The process of becoming a member of our social network entails learning how to make sense of life events in forms that do not push us into a corner of relational isolation. Even when we do not want to be accepted, the forms of action we

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

4.

5.

6.

7.

251

undertake to become outcasts are also socially and relationally sustained patterns of meaning making. Relationships are conversational. Since relationships and interactions are mediated by language, they adopt the form of conversations. In the context of a conversation, meaning is not an exclusively individual responsibility (or property). The meaning of our words or actions is always open to a process of supplementation (Gergen, 1994); that is, our words or actions need to be supplemented by those of other people to mean anything at all. Thus, the meaning attributed to our words or actions is never a final one and, potentially, they may be interpreted in many ways: meaning can always be reconstrued or reframed. Every new interpretation clears the space for a new version of events while it also reduces competing ones to the not-yet-said. Conversations are constitutive of subject positions. Conversations are constitutive of selves; such a constitutive force derives from their provision of subject positions. Since the meaning of our words or actions does not depend exclusively on ourselves but on a process of unfolding supplementation, conversations create subject positions that are contingent to the very conversation taking place. In this sense, we can position ourselves differently depending on the conversation in which we are taking part. Such an amalgam of subject positions becomes constitutive of our self-concept-conceived of not as a totally private process but as the result of internalizing significant conversations. Subject positions are expressed as voices. When a subject position is discursively expressed, it becomes a voice. Voices are thus the discursive expressions of different subject positions constituted in internalized conversations. As Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) aptly noted, authorial voices are likely not to be totally coherent but to maintain a dialogical relationship among them, some being more dominant than others. Both inner dialogue and externalized conversations assume the form of a dialectical interchange, in the sense that our words are not only addressed to the object of our discourse but also to every other competing discourse of which we can think. Voices expressed along a time dimension constitute narratives. Since the essence of narrative is time, the expression of a voice along a time dimension assumes a narrative form. Given the dialogical nature of subject positions and discursively expressed narrative voices, there is always more than one way to tell our life story, more than one voice to

252

Personal Construct Methodology

be heard, and more than one plot to be voiced. In this reconstructive potential lies the essence of human change in general and psychotherapy in particular; were it not for the indeterminacy of meaningmaking processes, the only way left in some cases would be to abandon the scene altogether. 8. Identity is both the product and the process of self-narrative construction. Certainly, the answer to the question, “Who am I?” shapes and defines our identity in a given moment. However, the way we selects the events to be included in (or excluded from) our narrative, the main themes we organize it around, the characters we regard as significant or nonsignificant, the voices we privilege or silence when telling it . . . all of it is as constitutive of our own identity as the content of our life story. When seen in this light, identity becomes synonymous with authorship. From what has been said so far, it is obvious that there is never a single fixed, final, or true life story to tell, nor a single way to tell it, but a plethora of possibilities. 9. Psychological problems are embedded in the process of construing narratives of identity. What we call “psychological problems” or “disorders” constitute a “fuzzy set” of human ways to belong and relate to the world. What seems to be common to practically all of them, however, is the subjective experience of unintelligibility and loss of personal agency that they introduce in people’s narratives of identity. Under a myriad different discursive expressions, people who complain about psychological suffering refer naturally to one or both of the aforementioned narrative blocks. It is as if, somehow, our position relative to our narrative of identity had been pushed to a state of authorial powerlessness. Life (as in the Simon and Garfunkel’s song) seems “a scene badly written in which one must play.” 10. Psychotherapy can be equated to a collaborative dialogue addressed to transform the client’s narratives of identity. Psychotherapy takes place in language. Despite the pervasiveness of the medico/biological model and the drug metaphor, psychotherapy derives its transformative potential not from being a treatment or a cure, but from being a specialized form of human conversation in which new subject positions are voiced, new narratives are told, new forms of intelligibility emerge, and the not-yet-said finds room to be consciously and mindfully heard. The skill of the therapist is the skill of clearing the space for such a transformative dialogue to take place.

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

253

Before closing the present section we want to briefly elaborate on the position of relational constructivism in the context of other approaches to narrative psychology and psychotherapy, particularly regarding the constitutive (versus representative) nature of self-narratives. As Singer (1996) noted after carefully reviewing the main assumptions underlying earlier narrative approaches, some of them shared the common notion that the study of individual or collective narratives should clear the way for the study of an “actual world” transcending narrative itself. This is typical of earlier narrative traditions inspired by traditional sociology or anthropology, and Singer (1996) refers to this assumption as an objectivist one. In contrast, other approaches (particularly the ones inspired by symbolic interactionism, personology, and, more recently, cognitive psychology) addressed narratives as a way to access the “inner reality” of narrating individuals. Singer (1996) refers to this assumption as a subjectivist one. Our position in this context is neither objectivist nor subjectivist. We consider narratives not as a representation of a different domain of experience but as a form of relationally situated and constitutive action in their own right. That is, we assume that we are the stories that we live and tell, and we live and tell the stories that we are. To put it in more technical terms, relational constructivism is based on the assumption of a constitutive relationship between narrative and lived experience, in the sense that each one mutually defines and shapes the other. Thus, the more life is lived, for example, as a series of irreparable failures at critical points, the more it is told (to ourselves and to others) as such; and the more it is told in this painful and depressive way, the more it is lived as such.

Selected Dimensions of Narrative Analysis in Psychotherapy Among the various dimensions of narratives that can be analyzed, some have proven to be more relevant to psychotherapy than others. We will briefly discuss the main ones in this section. 1. Narrative structure and coherence: Structure in general, and coherence in particular, is one of the narrative features that has received more research attention. According to Gon¸calves, Henriques, and Cardoso (2001), narrative structure and coherence is composed of (a) orientation – i.e.,

254

Personal Construct Methodology

the who, when, and where of the narrative, (b) structural sequence – the what of the narrative, (c) evaluative tone – i.e., the emotional relevance of the narrative, and (d) integration – i.e., to what extent the main thread of the narrative is more or less clear. Research has repeatedly demonstrated, for example, that traumatic events such as grief and loss fracture narrative coherence and successful therapy contributes to reconstructing it. For example, Debbie, a previously successful and happy young woman, came to our therapy center after having lost her husband in a dramatic car accident. In the beginning of her therapy she felt as if her life had been torn in two; as if there was a before and an after of losing her husband. Her life narrative had lost a sense of orientation in a very significant sense; losing her husband (the who of the story) made her feel there was no future for her – no where to head her life to, and no when to anticipate and foresee. Debbie’s narrative structural sequence revolved almost obsessively around the accident and the circumstances surrounding the death of her husband, as is often the case in such painful life events. The evaluative tone of her narrative at this point was, as can be expected, so overwhelming that she felt herself almost physically choking when the sadness of her story pervaded her. 2. Complexity of the narrative content: According to Gon¸calves et al. (2001b), narratives can be assessed depending on their level of complexity regarding (a) themes – i.e., contents and topics, (b) events – i.e., narrative sequences, (c) scenarios – i.e., where does the action take place, and (d) characters. Lack of content complexity is a problem in many psychotherapeutic situations. For example, Rose, a middle-aged graphic designer came to therapy because she had been diagnosed as agoraphobic. Her pretherapy narrative revolved almost exclusively around one theme: restrictions to her freedom of movement. Her life had become a predictable series of encounters with events that she perceived as potentially dangerous (taking the subway, shopping, driving to her office) and with her own protective reactions to them. The events in her everyday life were almost always of the same nature: facing her fears and feeling unable to win. Also, the scenarios were quite repetitive and, as we said before, involved almost always public transportation, driving or going to crowded places. Rose’s narrative was also quite scarce regarding characters. As is the case with other clients in her situation, she had restricted her relational network to a few (in fact, only one) persons she thought she could trust completely.

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

255

3. Narrative process: According to Gon¸calves et al. (2001a) the narrative process can range from (a) objective – i.e., an external and sensory description of experience, to (b) emotionally subjective – i.e., a description of internal emotional experiences, (c) cognitively subjective – i.e., a description of internal cognitive experiences; and (d) metaphoric – i.e., a description of experience from a reflexive position. The passage from objective/external narratives to metaphoric/reflexive ones has been repeatedly demonstrated to be related to a good therapeutic outcome. For example, Trevor, a professional piano player who came to see us because he said he had “lost his love for music” began by telling his story in what was basically an objective mode. He talked of how during a specially difficult rehearsal his hands seemed to refuse to play more, whereupon he left and had been unable to play again since then. Through a series of questions helping him to focus his experience in subjective terms, he was increasingly able to identify his emotions and thoughts regarding this episode. As a result, he began reflexively connecting his problems with the rejection he has always felt coming from his father. At a given point during his therapy, he said: “I realize that maybe I should ‘not look back in anger’, but I also realize it’s almost impossible for me to overcome my block if I don’t overcome my anger also.” The metaphoric and reflexive quality of this statement is quite obvious, and clearly contributed to Trevor’s therapeutic success. 4. Narrative intelligibility : Self narratives are a social and relational product, and thus making them intelligible is a prerequisite to making sense within one’s own social network. In this sense, narratives can be assessed regarding the level of (a) social intelligibility of their preferred endpoint, (b) conflict between diverging endpoints, and (c) relevance of the events included. Lack of social intelligibility was a problem for Mike, a client who consulted us regarding a decision no one understood in his life: getting married or becoming a Franciscan monk. Mike’s family was not Catholic, and he has not had a religious education. His relationship with his girlfriend was quite good, and neither she nor Mike’s family had any idea of Mike’s religious inclinations. Thus, when he disclosed his doubts, they came as an unpleasant and almost unbelievable surprise to everyone in his life. With the help of his therapist, Mike was able to relate his plans to enter a Franciscan monastery, his wish to devote some time to reflect on what he wanted to do with his life (not exactly to religious faith), and to give himself permission to use his therapy sessions to find

256

Personal Construct Methodology this time. Such a reframing helped him and the rest of his family to make more sense of his previously inexplicable doubts.

In accordance with what we have discussed so far, we regard psychological processes, problematic or not, as discursive and narrative forms. The existential problems that therapeutic conversations deal with incorporate inevitably a time dimension because existence means time. If storied experience assumes a narrative structure, lived experience assumes an active structure. Thus we consider that the function of self-narratives is not only descriptive, but performative (Austin, 1962) since they are in themselves actions (or forms of positioning) in the world. The world that we make reference to is not the world of the material physical reality, but the inter subjective world of the ecology of narratives in which each of them is placed. Thus, a self narrative cannot be evaluated in terms of its adjustment to reality (as assumed by rationalist cognitive therapies), but according to its intelligibility and coherence with the forms of social convention in which it positions itself. There is a dimension of the relational narrative discourse of clients in psychotherapy that seems to be common to many of them: the construction of their situation as unchangeable. In other words, people who go to therapy usually feel incapable to take part in a life that appears to them to be immutable. Our present conception is that psychological problems can be conceived as the result of (a) a block in the discursive, narrative and relational processes of meaning construction and (b) a failure of the attempted solutions to overcome this block. People go to therapy when they feel trapped in what White and Epston (1980) call their “dominant narratives”; narratives that disqualify, limit, or deny significant aspects of their experience and their sense of identity. As discussed by Mair (1990), our lives are formed in the stories that we live, and our experience is made of the stories that we narrate and the forms in which we are allowed to narrate them. In critical situations we are not able to narrate our own story and we do it in forms that contradict our lived experience. Anticipating new events become impossible, and we need those elements that legitimize and give a sense of coherence and perspective to our own life. In these cases the fundamental does not turn out to be evidence, but finding a new language game that allows us to access alternative forms to reconstruct our present narrative. Psychotherapy, as already proposed by Kelly (1955/1991), becomes therefore a reconstruction of experience; a unique form of conversation that tries to modify the

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

257

personal theories of the clients so that they allow them to reach significant goals and to face their problems.

Psychotherapy as Narrative Reconstruction: A Case Example We regard psychotherapy as the intentional genesis of meaning and narratives that can transform our client’s construction of their experience by means of a collaborative dialogue. Considering the conception of psychological problems presented in the previous section, our main therapeutic goals when working with our clients are (a) to help them to introduce significant changes in any dimension of their narratives so that they revive their function as relational frames, and (b) to help them to become conscious of the discursive, narrative, and relational nature of human experience, with the ultimate goal of fostering not just “substitution” but “narrative transcendence” (Gergen and Kaye, 1992). Such objectives are summarized by Mook (1992) when she said that clients who go to therapy need two things: intelligibility and transformation. A particularly useful way to foster such a reconstruction is by means of the Cycle of Experience (also discussed in detail in Chapter 6) originally proposed by Kelly (1970) and formalized by Neimeyer (1987) within the realm of PCP. The Cycle of Experience as originally proposed is based on the notion that anticipations assume the form of hypotheses – i.e., relations between constructs. The Cycle is thus equated to a sort of personal scientific testing of these hypotheses via (inter)personal experience. The Cycle of Experience has been proposed as a model of optimal psychological functioning from a constructivist standpoint (Kelly, 1980; Neimeyer, 1987). When the Cycle of Experience is successfully completed, the personal system of anticipations and narratives develops toward increased complexity, predictive power and coherence. As we quoted before, such narrative order and coherence may be essential in giving life a sense of meaning and direction. However, even if personal constructs constitute the building blocks of human meaning-making processes, these processes rarely limit themselves to such a simple form when they are experientially lived and discursively expressed. In other words, when we construe our ongoing experience, we do not only phrase it into personal constructs and/or hypothesis but into full narratives. The relationship between narratives and constructs can thus be

258

Personal Construct Methodology

equated to the one between a text and its title. A title (i.e., a construct) is useful for the sake of brevity and condensation, and it is certainly informative because it is a concise statement of the main topic. However, to appreciate the complexity and nuances of the author’s intention, one needs to read the whole text (i.e., the whole narrative). Besides, the Cycle of Experience takes place, inevitably, in a relational and interpersonal context. Thus, as discussed in the previous section of this chapter, one’s construct system and self-narratives do not exist in a social vacuum, but in an everexpanding sea of conversations, relationships, and discursive subjective positions. Constructs and narratives are not only descriptions of the social world, but avenues of movement that allow one to relate to that world in meaningful ways (Kelly, 1955/1991). Basically, the Cycle of Experience describes the process of meaning construction as a 5-stage ongoing process according to which we human beings face experience by first subjectively anticipating its outcome. Narratively speaking, the anticipation of an event can be equated to its anticipatory narratization. When we encounter an experience, we tend to attribute a narrative structure to it. The process of attributing a narrative structure to experience (narratization) consists in a twofold process of (a) emplotment, and (b) thematization. Emplotment implies “constructing and interconnecting events in such a way that meaningful structures are developed” (Hermans and Kempen, 1993, p. 22). Emplotment can be defined as the ordering of events narrated along a sequential and unfolding narrative structure (be it in terms of temporal, spatial, or causal relations). A theme is “a general thought or idea of which a set of propositions is taken to be an illustration” (Prince, 1982, p. 74). Thus, thematization implies the structuring of the events narrated along a smaller number of cross-sectional themes that are superordinate to the actual facts being told. An example of the traumatic consequences of unanticipated crisis (in this case traumatic loss and death) is provided by the account of a bereaved father, who refers to his personal and family life before his son’s suicide as a peaceful and successful one: Going back in history, we would need to go back about ten years. By that time a relatively young man was fully living his academic and professional success, built with his daily efforts, a consequence of his studies, relationships, and his desire to improve in life. At the same time a beautiful family made up of three children: a girl of 15, a young boy of 13, and a child of 4, plus an intelligent and cultivated wife, an excellent companion. Nothing disturbed this peaceful

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

259

family whose father used to keep problems from work separated from the ones at home. The older children were good students, they had a peaceful childhood and adolescence, and the family built itself and grew up apart from the problems of the rest of the mortals. Time went by, the adolescents entered college and they were their father’s pride, a father who was looking at life maybe with a slight arrogance in seeing how his children were beginning to walk a triumphant path in life.

Obviously, such a successful and happy life cannot accommodate a fact so brutal as one’s son suicide, as this client says: “these things never happen to oneself; one is a witness to these facts.” To the extent that such an anticipation is perceived as self-relevant, our investment in the outcome of our “personal experiment” is likely to be higher or lower. In the process of narratization, events are emplotted according to their relevance to the narrative’s guiding theme/s. As is the case in many constructivist approaches, we assume a hierarchical structure in which every narrative theme is subordinate or superordinate to any other one with the more superordinate ones being “core themes.” Thus, it is predictable that investment in the outcome of the particular experience being narratively anticipated will be higher or lower depending on the relevance of the anticipated narrative to the overarching (or core) theme/s in one’s self-narrative. In the case of traumatic nonanticipated loss what is at stake is a selfnarrative in which loss is absent. Narratives of this sort, with their associated component of existential continuity, deal almost inevitably with core issues such as identity, the meaning of life, the fairness of God or Fate, or one’s own powerfulness or powerlessness in controlling the circumstances of his or her own life. Being all of these core narratives, it is predictable that they would involve a high level of investment. Through our encounter with the event, anticipations will either be validated or invalidated (i.e., confirmed or disconfirmed). Through encounter with the narratively anticipated event, i.e., through the narratization of ongoing experience, we validate or invalidate the anticipated narrative. Positive emotions such as joy, satisfaction, or self-realization can be considered a consequence of validation, whereas negative emotions such as anxiety, threat, depression, fear, or guilt can be considered a consequence of invalidation. The intensity of the emotions aroused in this stage is related to the relative level of investment in the narrative (or construct) being validated or invalidated. Thus, in narrative terms, the

260

Personal Construct Methodology

higher the relevance of the narrative being validated or invalidated to one’s core themes, the higher the intensity of emotions aroused by such validation or invalidation. Taking into account what has been discussed so far, when traumatic loss is involved it is predictable that invalidation will follow, because the anticipated future excluded loss. Therefore, negative emotions are likely to emerge as a result of the traumatic event – at least in the first stages after trauma before reconstruction or “healing” begins. Because the level of investment in the invalidated narrative is likely to be very high, as discussed before, it is also predictable that accompanying emotions will be extremely intense. Both the level of investment and the traumatic effects of invalidation can be seen in the following fragment of the father’s narrative: Suddenly a sort of black cloud placed itself over that previously peaceful home, the adolescent son began to change, he looked strange, he would lock himself in his room to cry, he gave up his studies and entered into a profound depression. He was treated in the country’s best centers; he would improve and become his old self temporarily just to fall into his depression again. One day he left home and never returned; he was found dead, his car had fallen off of a cliff under circumstances never explained. He was 21. The family faced the fact calmly, keeping their pain to themselves, but questioning absolutely every paradigm they had respected until then. All their constructs, product of years of social and professional successes were absolutely shattered. What happened? Who was to blame? Was it an accident? All these questions passed the family members’ mind, especially the father’s, repeatedly. Eventually the suicide hypothesis became inescapable, and as a consequence their personal constructs were absolutely shattered and psychological destruction began to threaten the family group, especially its head. Time passed by and the period of grief was carried out internally. Outwards it was strength, personality, toughness; inwards it was destruction, questioning, and mixed emotions. After 2 years, grieving continues up until now.

Notice how this fragment also exemplifies the social nature of our personal narratives and constructs. Our client mentions that the family faced the fact “by keeping their pain to themselves,” an attitude that is likely to be seen as socially desirable among people who position themselves (as he also mentions) as “fully living his academic and professional success.” This may well be the reason why he “did not disclose his situation to anyone.” He clearly attributes his own constructs to the product of years of

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

261

social and professional successes. The discourse of social success usually entails a “stiff upper lip” attitude and a reliance on the “self-made man” metaphor. It is also likely that the questioning of “absolutely every paradigm they had respected until then” also entailed questioning his own position in an interpersonally sustained network of meanings and worldviews, a threatening anticipation that he would need to find new ways to belong to the world. Particularly if anticipations are invalidated we will face the need to constructively revise our personal construct system, i.e., our way of making anticipations or hypothesis. A constructive revision of core themes and narratization processes is needed. Thus the “last” stage of the cycle is recursively connected to the “first” one, because the result of our constructive revision influences the way we meet new experiences. A shift in the narrative’s guiding theme is accompanied by a change in the events selected as relevant and emplotted as such (Hermans and Kempen, 1993). However, even if this reconstructive process is possible, it may be particularly difficult in some instances. This difficulty arises from the inevitable loss of coherence in one’s self-narrative and interpersonal positions after such a core invalidation. A narrative is coherent to the extent that the events in it are relevant to its theme (Hermans and Kempen, 1993) and emplotted as a reasonably predictable sequence. In the case of traumatic loss, the traumatic event is undeniable, and it must be acknowledged and emplotted in one’s post-traumatic self-narrative if such a narrative is to be constructively revised. Loss of narrative coherence stems from the fact that the traumatic event violates almost by definition the core themes in one’s self-narrative. Thus, one may be confronted with the difficult task of reconstruing an invalidated narrative that must make sense of an event incompatible with the core themes that sustained the previous narrative. Some instances of traumatic loss may be extremely difficult to cope with (i.e., to narratively reconstrue) because they involve the violation of what seem to be fundamental cornerstones of human existence. For example, the death of a child violates the almost commonsensical idea that “children outlive their parents,” and it is hard to reconcile with one’s belief in a forgiving God or a just Fate. Also, loss brought forth by a suicidal action faces the bereaved with the need to deal with issues of agency in the deceased actions, questioning not only spiritual issues but the very essence of human freedom. Empirical research indicates that these and related forms of death generate a greater sense of threat than other more “timely” ones (see Neimeyer and Epting, 1992, for a review). In this sense, our client’s

262

Personal Construct Methodology

experience is probably one of the most difficult ones to reconstruct, since it involves the suicide of one’s son. As he says “it’s not fair that one’s children die.” The only way to conduct the reconstructive process seems to be a profound revision of one’s own core issues such as the ones mentioned before (i.e., the meaning of life, the fairness of God or Fate, or one’s own powerfulness or powerlessness in controlling the circumstances of his or her own life). These ultimate questions have no definite answers and belong traditionally to a spiritual realm; this is probably the reason why most people cope with the profoundly invalidational experience of traumatic loss and death by resource to spiritual or religious beliefs or by the abandonment of them. In the case of this client’s narrative, that deals extensively and in detail with his reconstructive process, a pattern of meaning reconstruction can be observed. First the narrative focuses on a given guiding theme (professional and social success) and the emplotted events are coherent with it. Then the occurrence of traumatic loss shatters such coherence by introducing a threatening and unpredictable event (one’s son suicide) that is incompatible with the original narrative guiding theme: how can one keep considering his life a success after his son has committed suicide? Despite his attempts to recover coherence by “never until now accepting the suicide thesis, devoting himself again fully to his professional and academic functions (that he never left in front of the others) and looking at life skeptically, with the same success as before” the impact of the traumatic event is too strong to be easily marginalized from one’s narrative. As discussed above, it is at this time that he begins considering profound existential questions and losing his faith in everything he used to believe. As could be expected, this massive questioning generates an also massive loss of narrative and interpersonal coherence: he is left with the task of reconstructing his life from scratch, finding a new harbor to anchor his life and a new position in a relational network. The reconstructive process as he exemplifies in his narrative consists precisely in finding a new guiding theme for his life and his identity, one that does not marginalize his loss but includes it and even uses it as a cornerstone. Thus, the emerging narrative is no longer focused exclusively on professional and social success, but on a newly found sense of “spirituality, emotionality, love, intellectuality, physical strength and a proactive view of one’s future and life, creative strength, and sociability.” He equates this process to the creation of “a new system of constructs” that “give a different

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

263

meaning to a life that undoubtedly has a before and an after.” Such constructs allow one to “live again, probably more intensely than before, enjoying life in all that it means: at home, at the workplace, with one’s friends and acquaintances” to “laugh again, simply put, to live.” This emerging narrative and sense of personal identity renders his life more sensitive to the richness of the here-and-now, it increases his mindfulness and his reflexive awareness that there is more to life than social and professional success (even if such experiences are also important). In fact, he mentions that this newfound mindfulness helped him to achieve “the creative strength that allows you to re-enter the professional world.” In terms of the coherence between the initial narrative and the one that unfolds through the process of reconstruction, it could be argued that this “re-entering” into the professional world acts as a link that helps him find a sense of existential continuity even in the face of a traumatic event that determines “a before and an after.” This client’s narrative, and particularly his poems, is rich in metaphors for death and loss. It is to these metaphors that we will devote the last section of this chapter, since we assume that finding a metaphor to describe a novel and traumatic experience is a way to make sense of it. Postmodern therapist Lois Shawver (1998) refers to such shifts as “transvaluations.” A transvaluation is a reframing that shifts the evaluative connotation from negative to positive (for a positive transvaluation) or from positive to negative (for a negative transvaluation). According to her, transvaluations are made possible by the fact that our natural language seems to have two vocabularies for describing things, one positive and one negative. Shawver mentions many examples of how almost anything can be reframed as positive or negative according to the word (or metaphor) we use to refer to it; for example, “immature” can be positively tranvaluated as “youthful,” “irresponsible” as “easygoing,” or “uncooperative” as “independent.” Of course, negative transvaluation is always possible by the opposite process. Transvaluation goes beyond mere “playing with words” as long as the new emergent meaning allows one to see previously unnoticed features of one’s experience and identity. Particularly when, as a result of the transvaluation, one’s subjective position changes from being a victim of one’s circumstances to being an active agent in their shaping its effects can be profound and enduring, as many narrative therapists have traditionally emphasized. In Bakhtin’s terms as discussed above, transvaluation clears the space for new voices to emerge, voices that may well challenge the status of the preexisting ones as the dominant discourses.

264

Personal Construct Methodology

The general pattern of metaphorical transvaluations in the whole of the four poems seems to begin with a view of death that deprives the bereaved from any hope to find meaning in the experience of loss. The poem “Your Absence” constitutes a beautiful and moving example of what Gergen (1999) calls “relational being.” He defines his identity as co-emerging in his relationship with his son, to the point that they are not two separate entities but two manifestations of the same one. The implicit metaphor here seems to be the one of a single living organism that has lost a part of his body. Thus, the feeling of loss is unbearable since what is lost is not something one had but something one was. Death is depicted as a hopelessly shattering event that leads all dreams to an irrevocable end. In the poem entitled “Rebelliousness,” his search for the meaning of his son’s suicide and consequent “disquieting emptiness” is negatively transvaluated as the product of a “rebellious” and “restless” attitude that leads him to nothing but even “less answers.” The passage of time is also negatively transvaluated as a metaphorical “fog” that “makes your memory turbid.” Thus, yearning for meaning has a negative connotation of rebelliousness and restlessness, and leads to nothing but increased confusion. Nevertheless, to the extent that death, and particularly suicide, is metaphorically transvaluated as a choice (admittedly with very negative counterparts), a new system of meanings begin to emerge. In the poem entitled “And . . .” death is metaphorically transvaluated as a “bride” one can “kiss” and “embrace.” The negative counterpart, however, is that this metaphorical bride has “subjugated your soul and shadowed your spirit.” Suicide is also transvaluated as a “journey,” a metaphor similar to the one of the flight in the poem “Your Search.” The negative counterpart again is that it has “no return” and that by embarking in it one “leaves a thousand grieves behind.” In the last of his poems, his son’s death is transvaluated as “Your Search” in its very title. The poem emphasizes the degree of freedom implicit in his son’s suicidal action by making resource to metaphors such as “looking for a rainbow hidden in the mountain” or “flying your endless freedom” (notice that “searching,” “looking for” and “flying” are active verbs). While such “flight without return” is construed as “our pain and punishment,” it is also transvaluated as “our comfort,” and “our guide and our hope” since it is seen as an act of freedom. In this case, the degree of resemblance between the unfamiliar (suicide) and the familiar (flight) that allows the metaphor to make sense to the reader derives (perhaps inadvertently) from the fact that the form of suicide that his son committed (throwing himself from a cliff

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

265

with his car) literally involved flying. This implicit connection adds emotional relevance and impact to the metaphor. Looking at the whole of the four poems, it seems that his quest for meaning was fostered by his transvaluating his son’s suicide as a choice; even if it was a dramatic, incomprehensible and fatal one. This transvaluation is likely to have lessened his own feeling of guilt or responsibility over his son’s act – notice that he explicitly asks “Who was to blame?” in his narrative. The new narrative that emerges from transvaluating suicide as a choice is one of “peace, calmness, and acceptance of a fact that the father qualifies as alien and illogical.” Of course we are not suggesting that there is anything essentially or normatively positive in such transvaluation; we can easily think of people who would be terrified by the sole idea that suicide might be an act of freedom. In this case, however, it led to a renewed vision of his life and himself, one that helped him clear the space for the emergence of a new voice of agency and hope in a world that, albeit shattered, could be reconstructed again.

References Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, Oxford University Press, London. Bakhtin, M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Bartlett, F.C. (1932) Remembering, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Botella, L. (1995) Personal construct psychology, constructivism, and postmodern thought, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 3 (eds R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3–36. ~es e mudan¸ca: uma aproxima¸c~ao discursiva a Botella, L. (2001) Di
alogo, rela¸co psicoterapia construtivista [Dialogue, relationships, and change: A discursive approach to constructivist psychotherapy], in Abordagens Construcionistas  a ´ . Gon¸calves and M. Gon¸calves), Quarteto, Coimbra, Psicoterapia (eds O Portugal, pp. 50–61. Botella, L. and Herrero, O. (2000) A relational constructivist approach to narrative therapy. European Journal of Psychotherapy, Counselling, and Health, 3, 1–12. Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionis, Routledge, London. Cozolino, L.J. (2002) The Neuroscience of Psychotherapy, W.W. Norton, New York. Efran, J.S. and Cook, P.F. (2000) Linguistic ambiguity as a diagnostic tool, in Constructions of Disorder (eds R.A. Neimeyer and J.D. Raskin), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 121–143. Efran, J.S., Lukens, M.D., and Lukens, R.J. (1990) Language, Structure, and Change: Frameworks of Meaning in Psychotherapy, Norton, New York. Gergen, K.J. (1991) The Saturated Self, Basic, New York.

266

Personal Construct Methodology

Gergen, K.J. (1994) Realities and Relationships, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Gergen, K.J. (1999) An Invitation to Social Construction, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Gergen, K.J. and Kaye, J. (1992) Beyond narrative in the negotiation of therapeutic meaning, in Therapy as Social Construction (eds S. McNamee,and K.J. Gergen), Sage, London. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, Garden City, NY. Gon¸calves, O.F., Henriques, M.R., Alves, A., and Rocha, C. (2001a) Manual de Avalia¸c~ao doProcesso e Complexidade Narrativa. Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho. Gon¸calves, O.F., Henriques, M.R., and Cardoso, G. (2001) Manual de Avalia¸c~ ao da Estrutura e Coer^e ncia Narrativa. Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho. Gon¸calves, O.F., Henriques, M.R., Soares, L., and Monteiro, A. (2001b) Manual de Avalia¸c~ao do Conte
udo e Multiplicidade de Narrativa. Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho. Guidano, V.F. (1991) The Self in Process, Guilford, New York. Harvey, J.H. (2000) Give Sorrow Words, Brunner Routledge, New York. Hermans, H.J.M. and Dimaggio, G. (eds) (2004) The Dialogical Self in Psychotherapy, Routledge, New York. Hermans, H.J.M. and Kempen, H.J.G. (1993) The Dialogical Self: Meaning as Movement, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Kandel, E.R., Schawrtz, J.H., and Jessell, T.M. (1991) Principles of Neural Science, 3rd edn, Elsevier, New York. Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Routledge, New York. Kelly, G.A. (1970) Behavior is an experiment, in Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (ed. D. Bannister), Academic, London. Kelly, G.A. (1980) A psychology of the optimal man, in Personal Construct Psychology: Psychotherapy and Personality (eds A.W. Landfield and L.M. Leitner), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Liggan, D.Y. and Kay, J. (1999) Some neurobiological aspects of psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 8, 103–114. Mair, M. (1990) Telling psychological tales. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 3, 121–135. Mascolo, M.F., Craig-Bray, L., and Neimeyer, R.A. (1997) The construction of meaning and action in development and psychotherapy: An epigenetic systems approach, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 4 (eds G.J. Neimeyer and R.A. Neimeyer), JAI Press, Greenwich, CN, pp. 3–38. Mook, B. (1992) Intersubjetividad y estructura narrativa en la terapia familiar. Revista de Psicoterapia, 10–11 13–22.

Narrative Assessment in Psychotherapy

267

Neimeyer, G.J. and Neimeyer, R.A. (1993) Defining the boundaries of constructivist assessment, in Constructivist Assessment: A Casebook (ed. G.J. Neimeyer), Sage, London, pp. 1–30. Neimeyer, R.A. (1987) An orientation to personal construct therapy. In R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer (Eds.), Personal construct therapy casebook. New York: Springer. Neimeyer, R.A. (1998) Social constructionism in the counselling context. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 135–149. Neimeyer, R.A. (2000) Narrative disruptions in the construction of self, Constructions of Disorder: Meaning Making Frameworks for Psychotherapy (eds R.A. Neimeyer and J.D. Raskin), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 207–241. Neimeyer, R.A. (2004) Fostering posttraumatic growth: A narrative contribution. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 53–59. Neimeyer, R.A. and Epting, F.R. (1992) Measuring personal meanings of death: 20 years of research using the Threat Index, in Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 2 (eds R.A. Neimeyer and G.J. Neimeyer), JAI Press, Greenwich, CN, pp. 121–147. Neimeyer, R.A., Herrero, O., and Botella, L. (2006) Chaos to coherence: Psychotherapeutic integration of traumatic loss. Journal of Constructivist Psychotherapy, 19, 127–145. Neimeyer, R.A. and Levitt, H. (2001) Coping and coherence: A narrative perspective on resilience, in Stress and Coping (ed. C.R. Snyder), Oxford, New York, pp. 47–67. Prince, G. (1982) Narratology: The Form and Function of Narrative, Mouton, Berlin. Rubin, D.C. and Greenberg, D.L. (2003) The role of narrative in recollection: A view from cognitive psychology and neuropsychology, in Narrative and Consciousness (eds G.D. Fireman, T.E. McVay,and O.J. Flanagan), Oxford, New York, pp. 53–85. Shawver, L. (1998) On the clinical relevance of selected postmodern ideas: with a focus on Lyotard’s concept of “differend”. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 26(4). Siegel, D.J. (1999) The Developing Mind, Guilford, New York. Siegel, D.J. (2001) Toward an interpersonal neurobiology of the developing mind: Attachment relationships, “mindsight,” and neural integration. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 67–94. Singer, J.A. (1996) The story of your life: A process perspective on narrative and emotion in adult development, in Handbook of Emotion, Adult Development, and Aging (eds C. Magai and S.H. McFadden), Academic Press, New York, pp. 443–463. White, M. and Epston, D. (1980) Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends, Dulwich Centre Publications, Adelaide. Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations, Macmillan, New York.

12

Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool within a Personal Construct Framework Heather Foster and Linda L. Viney When George Kelly (1955/1991a,b) developed the psychology of personal constructs he proposed a reform “directed toward the tendency for psychologists to impose preemptive constructions upon human behavior” (p. 775), that is, arbitrary diagnoses. He argued that a clinical psychologist should embrace the realities of a client’s life and identify “those avenues along which the client and the psychologist may proceed toward a solution of the client’s problems” (p. 774). A clinical diagnosis, therefore, should be seen as “the planning stage for client reconstruction” (p. 775). In this spirit, within a personal construct framework, the analysis of drawings, paintings, or pictures produced by a client can be used as an assessment tool to guide a “transitive diagnosis” (Kelly, 1955/1991b, p. 774), the term that Kelly used to describe an approach to diagnosis that was propositional (Winter, 1992), oriented to looking for “avenues of movement open to the client” (p. 195), and “bridges between the client’s present and his future” (Kelly, 1955/1991b, p. 775). Pictures can be used to help a person make their meanings clear (Viney, 1996), as a step toward finding directions for movement, and formulating “hypotheses for therapy” (Kelly, 1955/1991b, p. 984). The crucial understanding that underpins such an analysis, however, is that the content of a picture, that is, the personal constructs expressed in the

Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

270

Personal Construct Methodology

picture, can only be explained by the person who produced the images. Kelly warned of the danger of therapeutic interpretation, commenting that a construct is a psychological process of a live person. . . . the therapist must help the client develop new constructs out of the materials that the client is able to furnish. The words passing between them need to be valued in terms of what they mean to the client and not in terms of any natural symbolism or in terms of any magic properties of their own (Kelly, 1955/ 1991b, p. 1089).

Furthermore, “not only is a construct personal, but it is a process . . . it thus invariably expresses anticipation” (p. 1089), and “what the therapist anticipates . . . may differ radically from what the client sees” (p. 1089). In using drawings or pictures it is particularly important to guard against any interpretation of symbols that does not originate with the person creating the images. The principle that Kelly proposed as defining, and governing, therapeutic interpretation, was that, “all interpretations understood by the client are perceived in terms of his own system,” that is, “it is always the client who interprets, not the therapist” (p. 1090). To be effective a therapist will have to “take into account what the interpretation will mean to the client and not depend solely on the natural ‘correctness’ of the interpretation” (p. 1090) offered by the therapist. Once this basic principle is accepted, that images will not be interpreted according to any pre-existing set of constructs, however traditional or longstanding an association might seem to be (for example, a hearth might not mean home), drawings or pictures can be a used as an assessment technique in a way that is consistent with personal construct practice.

Personal Construct Practitioners’ Reports of the Use of Drawings and Other Images in Assessing and Helping Clients Kelly (1955/1991a) was at pains to explain that “construing is not to be confounded with verbal formulation. A person’s behaviour may be based upon many interlocking equivalence-difference patterns which are never communicated in symbolic speech” (p. 51). He further pointed out that, “a large portion of human behavior follows nameless channels which have no language symbols, nor any kinds of signposts whatsoever. Yet . . . they

Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool

271

are included in the network of dichotomous dimensions with . . . which the person’s world is structured” (p. 130). Harter (2007) has suggested that preverbal construing is not limited to constructs developed in early childhood. She drew attention to the vague constructions that “emerge at the growing edges of our constructive efforts” (Harter, 2007, p. 175), which may not easily be given verbal labels, but occur when we are “creating new meanings, a process we can access throughout our lives” (p. 175). Personal construct practitioners have reported using a variety of images and image-making techniques to help clients elaborate their construct systems, and gain access to preverbal or nonverbal construing. Robbins (2005), for example, used drawing with older adults to provide “an alternative approach for people who are not comfortable with writing” (p. 305), and found that it helped “to explore and articulate nonverbal construing” (p. 305). S. Bell and R. Bell (1989, 2008) have given an account of the use of drawings with children. These researchers used Kelly’s (1955/1991a) technique for analysing self-characterizations to analyze children’s drawings, and found that the observation of process was important in itself. Kelly (1955/1991a) had suggested the use of these techniques not to score a client’s self-characterization, but “to bring it into focus” (p. 330). The techniques involved an analysis of (a) observation of sequence and transition, (b) observation of organization, (c) reflection against context, (d) collation of terms, (e) shifting emphasis, and (f) restatement of the argument, as well as the analysis of contextual areas, and thematic and dimensional analysis. Cornelius (2000) in her report on the use of rich pictures, also referred to the applicability of this technique to the analysis of pictures. A further approach to the use of images was taken by Bailey and Walker (2003) and Hanieh and Walker (2007) who used photography to explore clients’ experiences of depression, and as a nonverbal measure of constriction, an innovative use of a nonverbal medium as an assessment technique. In addition to the studies reporting on the use of images, a number of personal construct practitioners have reported on the value of other nonverbal means of communication in personal construct therapy. Cipolletta (2006) uses dance in therapy, and others have discussed reading, writing, music, singing, and acting, in personal construct terms (Scheer and Sewell, 2006). The focus of this discussion, however, is on the use of images in assessing and helping clients.

272

Personal Construct Methodology

Techniques Using Contrasting Images to Identify and Explore Bipolar Constructs Kelly (1955/1991a) defined construing as “placing an interpretation,” explaining that “a person places an interpretation upon which is construed” (p. 50), and he referred to a construct as “the basic contrast between two groups. When it is imposed it serves both to distinguish between its elements and to group them” (Kelly, 1970, p. 13). He proposed that all constructs follow a dichotomous form, in which similarity and contrast “are inherent in the same construct” (Kelly, 1955/1991a, pp. 50–51). That is, “each construct contains two poles, one at each end of its dichotomy” (p. 137), so that “the relationship between the two poles of a construct is one of contrast” (p. 137). To understand a construct is therefore to understand the contrast that is being made by an individual, “a construct is a way in which some things are construed as being alike and yet different from others” (p. 105). Some practitioners have explicitly used contrasting images as a device to explore avenues for proceeding toward a solution of the client’s problems. Stein (2007) has reported on using art cards in a series of explorations in which she asked clients to choose two cards that were “similar in one important way,” and, having elicited the similarity in words, to select a card that “represents for you the opposite of ” (p. 116) the qualities the client had previously described. She then explored the bipolar constructs that emerged. She reported that “introducing images and visual metaphors or symbols” could “be a powerful loosening tool” (pp. 121–122), that could invigorate the development of “new options, the tightening process of evaluating them and testing them out over time” (p. 122). In a paper written in 1980, and published later, Tom Ravenette (1999) gave an account of a drawing technique he had developed within a personal construct context, in which he asked the children he was working with to produce “a drawing and its opposite.” The strength of this innovation was that he was able to encompass, within a drawing activity, a basic technique of personal construct interviewing, that of eliciting both poles of a construct. By asking a child to draw an opposite picture after a first picture had been drawn, he was able to use the two contrasting drawings to elicit both poles of the constructs involved. This opened up the possibility of a more detailed view of the client’s personal construct system, and a more profound

Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool

273

understanding of a person’s constructs, than might be elicited from a single picture. Ravenette did not advocate a specific set of techniques for analyzing the drawings, but used the drawings “as part of a therapeutic dialogue with the child” (p. 126). Cornelius (2000), adapted Ravenette’s (1999) technique in her work with adults. She asked participants “to complete a rich picture . . . and to produce a Kellyian ‘contrast pole’ picture also” (p. 56) as part of workshops with nontherapeutic work-based groups. She reported that she decided on “an approach that would maximize participation and reflection, but initially by-passed the difficulties and limitations of using language as the initial primary data base for eliciting ‘open’, free flowing, and not ‘heavily edited’ construal and meaning” (p. 55). She argued that with the use of drawing, there was “more opportunity for immediate and free expression of the pre-conscious and preverbal which may not be easily put into words” (p. 56). Humphreys and Leitner (2007) have given an account of the use of drawings during experiential personal construct psychotherapy with a young woman who struggled with “a fragmented sense of self ” (p. 126). At the suggestion of Ravenette, the therapist asked the young woman to draw “her various self-parts” (p. 134) as a means of “exploring that which was taken for granted” (p. 134) by the young woman. The therapist was able to use the drawings to explore the young woman’s bipolar constructs by asking her to “describe how each picture or character was similar to or different from the others” (p. 135). It emerged that the young woman’s “stories about her self-parts were disjointed prior to her drawings and the discussions that followed” but that afterwards she “told her story more succinctly . . . [and] the self-parts began to communicate more with each other” (p. 142). Although using drawing is initially daunting for some adults, its strength of application is that its spontaneity and immediacy can provide access to constructs, including preverbal constructs, that may be harder to bring to attention in other ways. Harter (2007) has suggested that it may be that images allow “simultaneous experiencing of the juxtaposition of elements from a variety of directions, [and] may better capture the perceptual and emotional immediacy of living” (Harter, 2007, p. 176). Asking people to produce two contrasting images, whether contained in one picture or two separate pictures, provides a strong basis for making contrasting meanings clear, exploring a person’s construct system, and developing avenues for movement.

274

Personal Construct Methodology

Using Drawings or Pictures in Developing a Transitive Diagnosis When Kelly (1955/1991a, 1955/1991b) discussed the idea of a transitive, or propositional, diagnosis, he proposed a list of six issues to be considered. These were: (1) normative formulations of the client’s problem; (2) psychological description of the client’s personal constructions, covering the client’s construction of what the problem area is, the client’s construction of what others believe to be the problem area, and the client’s life role constructions; (3) psychological evaluation of the client’s construction system, covering areas of anxiety, spontaneous elaboration, and constriction; (4) analysis of the milieu in which adjustment is to be sought; (5) determination of immediate procedural steps; and (6) planning management and treatment (pp. 777–778). In developing a transitive diagnosis, using drawings or pictures can help to elicit answers to the questions that arise from these issues, particularly in relation to issues (2) and (3). In the next section we discuss diagnostic indicators that may be used for developing hypotheses about a person’s construct structure, and the dimensions of diagnosis. For example, consideration of the indicators may help in hypothesizing answers to the questions: What part of the construct system is involved? Is it core or peripheral construing? That is, are the constructs involved central to the person’s construing and sense of self, or are they less central and so could be altered without danger. Are there indications of constricted or dilated construing? In other words, has the person narrowed their perceptual field to minimize apparent incompatibilities, or has their perceptual field been broadened to reorganize it more comprehensively. Are there indications of loose or tight construing? That is, are there indications that constructs could lead to varying or unvarying predictions. Are there any indications of emotions, shown either by drawing facial or bodily expressions, by the addition of words, or symbols such as scribbles? Therapeutic action would be guided by consideration of the answers to these questions, which would be tested in discussion with a client. The following discussion is based on the analysis of an adaptation of a drawing and its opposite, or contrast, and all of the illustrated pictures were drawn by women taking part in group workshops, whose names have been changed throughout to protect confidentiality.

Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool

275

Diagnostic Indicators in Analysing “A Drawing and Its Opposite” and Other Images The scope of the picture The scope of the pictures relates to issues such as the client’s construction of the problem area, covered under “psychological description of the client’s personal constructions” (Kelly, 1955/1991a, p. 778), the second issue listed by Kelly to be considered in making a transitive diagnosis (see above). Even when a standard instruction for drawing is given to a group, the individuality of each person’s construing is immediately apparent in the individual choice of subject matter to draw (Foster and Viney, 2007). For example, in groups of women in mid-life who were asked to draw a situation and its opposite, or contrast, that they were facing at the time of menopause, the subject matter of drawings ranged through finding a “soulmate,” leaving home, whether to retire, being a grandmother, and questions of health, fitness, and body image. The scope also indicates the grounds upon which the client “feels secure enough to be able to elaborate his personal construct system” (Kelly, 1955/1991a, p. 334), that is, the area of the construct system expressed in the drawings/pictures. Equally important, therefore, is the issue of what is not included in the picture. Another issue listed by Kelly in relation to formulations of the client’s problem, the client’s construction of what others believe to be the problem area, may also be considered through questions relating to the scope of the picture. For example, “who is/is not in the picture? How do they see things?” Questions about the scope of the picture can also be used to elicit the client’s life role constructions, an issue in arriving at a “psychological description of the client’s personal constructions” (p. 778). In some cases a picture will appear to lead directly to questions about life role. For example, in the case of Imogen, her picture (see Figure 12.1), shows two contrasting roles, isolated from any context: agile Aphrodite, reclining in a tree, reading a book, contrasted to Granny, confined to a rocking chair. The elaboration in this picture is discussed in the next section.

The degree of elaboration of the elements in the pictures The degree of elaboration of the elements in drawings or pictures can be used as a guide to the type of construing involved. It may indicate whether peripheral or core construing is involved; it may reveal the preferred pole of

276

Personal Construct Methodology

Figure 12.1 Imogen’s drawing.

a construct; whether a pole lacks elaboration or has been submerged; the tightness or looseness of the constructs, that is, whether there are indications that constructs could lead to varying or unvarying predictions; whether construing is constricted or dilated. It may indicate the area of anxiety, or other emotion. In Imogen’s picture, which contrasts being “Aphrodite” with being “Granny,” the two parts of the drawing mirror each other, but the drawing of Aphrodite is more elaborated. The drawing of Aphrodite is larger, the figure is visible, and the tree has leaves that shade the figure of Aphrodite. In contrast, Granny is barely there, all we see clearly is a rocking chair, and a strand of yarn, which perhaps indicates Granny is knitting. Aphrodite is clearly the elaborated, preferred, pole of Imogen’s construct. This picture indicated that it was possible that core construing about being active (a person who could climb a tree), and mentally alert (a person who enjoys reading a book), might be involved. The relative difference in elaboration also pointed to possible emotion, anxiety about changes in her body, and fear about ageing and the loss of the capacities that Imogen valued. Imogen later elaborated her concern about fitness, and its importance to her core constructs about herself. She talked of being at “an important stage in life as it brings more awareness of the need for me to adjust to my body’s ageing process and to look after it better before it’s too late,” and later said “my more negative experiences relate to the body not behaving as I’m used to, joint problems, the slowness of getting over such problems, nightime wakefulness etc,” putting into words her feeling of the unpredictability of what would, or was, happening to her body.

Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool

277

Figure 12.2 Maria’s drawing.

In Maria’s drawing, shown in Figure 12.2, her drawing about the choices she faced at menopause showed that her construing was constricted: only one issue, being a grandmother, was shown as critical for her future. She also indicated emotions associated with her possibilities. Maria’s picture shows herself as a face, apparently youthful and fair, although Maria was a dark-haired older woman. It has the word “me” written above the face, with a question mark above that, and two choices. On one side, there is the figure of a little girl with a cross through it, and “no baby” written above, with a downturned mouth above that; and on the other side, a drawing of a baby with “grandaughter” written next to it, and a smiling mouth above the figure. Menopause meant a happy future with a granddaughter, or a sad time without a granddaughter. This alone, it seemed, would determine whether she would be happy or sad. In a self-characterization, Maria slipped into the first person and wrote, “for me it is really difficult to trust others. I don’t like to know other people.” Maria’s role in the family was central in her life. She had a schoolage daughter, and her hope was that the future would hold a relationship with an as-yet unborn granddaughter, a continuation, perhaps, of her youthful role as mother. The constriction of her perceptual field to one element of her life was risky, as the role she envisaged depended on her daughter’s having a baby, and specifically a girl. In contrast to Imogen, for whom being a granny was a negative choice, in Maria’s case it was the only one that would make her happy. Other indicators discussed below also relate to constriction.

278

Personal Construct Methodology

The presence or absence of the self in the pictures It is important to ask about the meaning of the drawing before making any assumption about the presence or absence of the self in the drawings, as the self may be shown metaphorically. This issue may, however, be a useful guide to the direction for exploration. Kelly (1955/1991a) observed that in testing for constriction, “the personal construct psychologist would note whether or not the client related himself, or any aspects of himself, to the situation,” and that if the client did not, on a consistent basis, “the clinician would suspect that a part of his perceptual field was being ruled out, that the client was constricting” (p. 519). In a similar way, the presence of the self in a drawing may indicate people’s readiness to relate their construing about an issue to themselves, the immediacy of the issue for them, the degree of control they feel in their decision-making, or constriction of their construing. Joanne’s picture, shown in Figure 12.3, showed many elements, and two drawings separated by a wavy line, but only showed herself in the second drawing on the lower half of the page. Joanne did not show herself in the first part of the picture with a skull and a broken bone. This part seemed to indicate a constriction of the consideration of her situation to an issue about taking medication to prevent broken bones. It seemed to relate to construing of an issue that was not necessarily immediate for Joanne, which was unknown, but also possibly threatening. Having drawn the first part of the picture, it was as though Joanne then felt she could widen her perceptual field to explore a more personal issue. It

Figure 12.3 Joanne’s drawing.

Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool

279

is interesting that the second picture is more elaborated and takes up more space on the page. In the second part of the picture, Joanne drew herself in relation to paid work and family life. Firstly, she drew herself crying and running away from work, where she got paid but did not see her family, and secondly, with her family, but without money. The second part of the picture, which showed Joanne’s figure, seemed to express constructs related to a current dilemma, one in which Joanne saw herself as having to make a decision in the near future. In contrast, in Margo’s picture, shown in Figure 12.4, Margo is shown in each of the contrasting choices she envisages. In one part of her picture, which integrates her choices, she is at a fork in the road, setting off on a path

Figure 12.4 Margot’s drawing.

280

Personal Construct Methodology

to work in an area with buildings and a dollar sign, but in the other part of the picture, she shows herself cycling across the second path, rather than taking it, close to a vegetable patch, flowers, and a small boat. In this case, Margo was confidently construing the choices that she had. She was able to construe, and later choose, a way of combining both her work and leisure activities.

The relative size of the self in the pictures When the self is shown in a picture, the size of self in relation to other elements may indicate the degree of control people feel in their decisionmaking. It might suggest, for example, that in a case of the self being overshadowed by other elements, it would be useful to concentrate on working with the person within the context of the phases of the Circumspection-Preemption-Control (C-P-C) cycle so as to move towards a feeling of control. Liane’s picture, shown in Figure 12.5, showed two possibilities: the first, with a happy face at the top, showed a sunny picture with two people outside a little house, with a further figure crossed out; the second, with a sad face at the top, showed a rainy, stormy picture with only one person outside the house. In this drawing, the figures are tiny, dwarfed by the landscape and weather.

Figure 12.5 Liane’s drawing (original faint, enhanced for reproduction, name removed from top right-hand corner).

Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool

281

In Liane’s picture, she expressed construing that potentially left her at the mercy of overwhelming outside forces, in which her future happiness or unhappiness was constricted solely to the presence or absence of a “soul partner.” She said, I am feeling angry at the way my life is at the moment. . . . at the moment sometimes I just would [like] to be left alone. But on the other hand I would like to be in a relationship with a man. Because I have been on my own with the girls for 19 years I am at the stage that I would like to be with my soul partner.

Liane’s two girls are not shown in the picture, which depicted her constricted construing and her feelings of helplessness about her situation.

Are there any indications of emotion? Symbols of emotion can be explicitly shown in drawings, such as the downturned and smiling mouths in Maria’s picture shown in Figure 12.2, or the crying figure in Joanne’s picture shown in Figure 12.4. Emotion may also be shown metaphorically like the rainy and sunny contrasts in Liane’s picture shown in Figure 12.5. Metaphors, of course, may be misunderstood, so the person making the picture must explain the construing involved. In Liane’s case, she elaborated her metaphor with smiling and sad-looking faces added to the top of her picture. The drawing added important information to the picture of Liane’s construct system that was emerging, as Liane said in words that she was angry, but in her picture the emotion she showed also looked like sadness.

The relative size and place on the page of the contrasting pictures The relative size and place on the page of the contrasting pictures may, in some cases, illustrate the degree to which a person has elaborated a construct, or indicate which is the preferred pole of a construct. For example, the more elaborated pole, or the preferred pole of a construct, may take up more space on the page, or it may be placed above the contrast picture. The importance, the tightness or looseness of the constructs, or whether construing is constricted or dilated, even emotion, may also be indicated by the relative size of the two pictures. In Figure 12.1, Imogen’s drawing shows Aphrodite as larger, and centrally placed on the page. Granny is barely there, all we see clearly is a rocking chair, placed off-center

282

Personal Construct Methodology

on the page. Imogen confirmed that Aphrodite was the preferred pole of her constructs about the need to “maintain bodily well-being.” The invisibility of “Granny” reflected Imogen’s lack of elaboration of the contrast to well-being, and fears about what age could bring. In Joanne’s picture, shown in Figure 12.3, the second part of her picture is more elaborated and takes up more space on the page. It seems to indicate that the meanings depicted were more important, and immediate, for Joanne than those in the first part of her picture.

The strength of the lines of the drawing or picture The strength of the lines of the drawing could be affected by a person’s level of drawing skill, or confidence, however it is also possible that very faint or very strong lines in a picture may indicate emotion, for example, construing that is disturbing for the person making the picture. This can be cautiously explored and evaluated in the light of the meanings that emerge as the drawings are discussed. For example, Liane’s drawing, that expressed disturbing construing, was faintly drawn, and had to be enhanced for reproduction. It is possible that her construing may have been too disturbing for her to draw strongly. Alternatively Liane’s faint drawing may have been a reflection of her lack of confidence in drawing, in itself an area that can usefully be explored (Foster and Viney, 2009).

The integration of opposites, or choices, into one coherent picture The women whose drawings are shown in Figures 12.1–12.5 were given instructions which were a variation of Ravenette’s (1999) technique, in that they were asked to “draw a situation and its opposite focusing on a choice you are facing,” with no specification as to whether the depiction of the choices should be separate or integrated. Figures 12.1–12.5 show the variety of ways that this instruction was interpreted. When using similar instructions, consideration could be given to whether the integration of opposites, or choices, into one coherent picture, rather than two separate pictures of choices, is significant. Does this give any indication of confidence in making, or integrating, choices? Or could this simply be a question of skill in drawing? Margo’s drawing, shown in Figure 12.4, integrates her choices into one coherent picture, which seemed to point to her capacity to combine her

Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool

283

choices into one course of action later. This indicator could be considered, but only in the context of a full consideration of the scope of the picture. For example, Maria’s drawing, shown in Figure 12.2, shows her two contrasts in one picture, but the elements are so isolated or contained in cartoon-style bubbles, that they do not seem to present any possibility of an integrated pathway to the future.

Discussion The drawings illustrating this chapter provide some evidence that asking adults to create images can provide a pathway to constructs, or meanings, not easily accessible by words in the first instance, and thereby a pathway to a transitive diagnosis. It is as though, having taken the step to make a very personal image, the person then is able more easily to put into words the constructs that are expressed. It provides an useful strategy, particularly when working with people who find it difficult to put their meanings into words, for example, in the cases that Humphreys and Leitner (2007), or Robbins (2005), describe, or when dealing with topics concerning the body and bodily sensations, such as menopause (Foster and Viney, 2007). In addition, the use of contrasting images, such as in “a drawing and its opposite” (Ravenette, 1999), or the variants of it (Cornelius, 2000; Foster and Viney, 2007), and also in Humphreys and Leitner (2007), and Stein (2007), can provide an opportunity for widening the exploration of a person’s meanings and construct system in a very direct way, that can be useful in assessment and shorter-term, as well as longer-term, therapy. Personal construct psychologists have reported on the use of images with individual clients, (Bell and Bell, 2008; Bailey and Walker, 2003; Hanieh and Walker, 2007; Humphreys and Leitner, 2007; Stein, 2007), and with groups, (Cornelius, 2000; Foster and Viney, 2007). It would be suitable for use with both therapeutic and nontherapeutic groups. In the case of Cornelius (2000), drawings were used with workplace groups, and in Foster and Viney (2007), groups were predominantly workplace based. Images have been used in a variety of ways in personal construct practice, and it is relevant to have a set of criteria for approaching, or analyzing, the images in a way consistent with that practice. The diagnostic indicators presented in this chapter attempt to provide a framework, within the context of personal construct theory, for analyzing images, whether used in assessment, diagnosis, or helping clients. This framework does not

284

Personal Construct Methodology

attempt to interpret the meanings of the images, impose the therapist’s own meanings onto another person’s image(s), or provide a ready-made set of interpretations. Rather, the diagnostic indicators deal with some of the dimensions, and issues, that Kelly (1955/1991b) identified as important in forming a transitive diagnosis. They form “a system of approach” aimed at helping practitioners “understand and subsume” (Kelly, 1955/1991b, p. 595) the meanings expressed by clients in their pictures. The indicators can be used to inform hypotheses to guide the direction of questioning, and pathways to therapeutic action. The diagnostic indicators can be applied to many forms of images, such as drawings, crayon pictures, or paintings. Numbers 1, 2, and 5 (see previous section above) could also be applied to photographs. Some factors could be applied to a single image if that were used, but as we have discussed there are advantages to using contrasting images. Photographs could even be used in this way as “a photograph and its opposite.” For example, if two contrasting photographs were taken, Indicator 1, the scope, and Indicator 2, the degree of elaboration of the elements in each of the pictures, could be used as a guide to the type of construing involved, providing a variation and extension of the technique used by Bailey and Walker (2003), and Hanieh and Walker (2007). Using images as part of personal construct practice provides a challenging but rewarding extension to verbal techniques. The diagnostic indicators that we have proposed can be used with images to help create a pathway to diagnosis, the creation of new meanings, and reconstruction. We thank the women who shared with us their drawings that we have used to illustrate this chapter.

References Bailey, A. and Walker, B.M. (2003) Using psychophotography as a non-verbal measure of constriction, in Psychological Constructivism and the Social World (eds G. Chiari and M.-L. Nuzzo), FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp. 306–324. Bell, S.J. and Bell, R.C. (1989) Self-characterization in children’s drawings: Some links between PCT and the work of Winnicott and Milner. Eighth International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology, Assissi, Italy. Bell, S.J. and Bell, R.C. (2008) An illustration of self-characterization in a child’s drawing: The importance of process. Personal Construct Theory and Practice (retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp08/bell08.html), 5, 1–9.

Using Contrasting Drawings or Pictures as an Assessment Tool

285

Cipolletta, S. (2006) Movement in personal change: The practice of dance therapy, in Personal Construct Psychology: New Ideas (eds P. Caputi, H. Foster, and L.L. Viney), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, pp. 295–301. Cornelius, N. (2000) Seeking personal and collective meanings for health and happiness at work, in Challenging the Boundaries: PCP Perspectives for the New Millenium (eds J.M. Fisher and N.N. Cornelius), EPCA Publications, Farnborough, pp. 54–59. Foster, H. and Viney, L.L. (2007) Nonverbal explorations of construing: Drawing menopause. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 20(2), 147–165. Foster, H. and Viney, L.L. (2009) Changing lives: Processes of change in menopause workshops, in Personal Constructivism: Theory and Applications (eds L. Leitner and J. Thomas), Pace University Press, New York. Hanieh, E. and Walker, B.M. (2007) Photography as a measure of constricted construing: The experience of depression through a camera. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 20(2), 183–200. Harter, S. (2007) Visual art making for therapist growth and self-care. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 20(2), 167–182. Humphreys, C.L. and Leitner, L. (2007) Using drawings to elicit nonverbal constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 20(2), 125–146. Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991a) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. 1, Norton, New York. Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991b) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. 2, Norton, New York. Kelly, G.A. (1970) A brief introduction to personal construct theory, in Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (ed. D. Bannister), Academic Press, London, pp. 1–29. Ravenette, T. (1999) Personal Construct Theory in Educational Psychology: A Practitioner’s View, Whurr, London. Robbins, S. (2005) Looking forward towards the end – working with older people, in Personal Construct Psychotherapy: Advances in Theory, Practice and Research (eds D. Winter and L.L. Viney), Whurr, London, pp. 296–309. Stein, M. (2007) Nonverbal techniques in personal construct psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 20(2), 103–124. Viney, L. (1996) Personal Construct Therapy: A Handbook, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Winter, D.A. (1992) Personal Construct Psychology in Clinical Practice: Theory, Research and Applications, Routledge, London.

13

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents: An Integrated Model Miriam Stein, Elaine Atkinson, and Anne Fraser This chapter will demonstrate how the optimism and reflexivity underlying Kelly’s Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) and corresponding methods can be applied in counseling and psychotherapy with adolescents. As Kelly did not write specifically on adolescent psychology and methodology, we will put forward an integrated model for assessment and intervention. The model draws on the work of developmental theorists, especially Erik Erikson (1963, 1985), specialist adolescent practitioners such as Geldard and Geldard (1999) and Ravenette (1977, 1980, 2000) as well as the findings of researchers of general adolescent coping, such as Frydenberg and Lewis (2009). The original integrated practice model had its beginnings in the early 1980s in Western Australia amongst a team of clinical psychologists whose clients included “welfare” teenagers, their families (both foster and biological) and schools. By combining a PCP framework with a sound understanding of developmental psychology, it was possible to achieve successful interventions in a context that had not commonly been known for highly motivated or satisfied clients. One of the authors, Anne Fraser, continues to work in a government community services setting and the others now use this approach in clinical private practice. Its application has been extended to group work with adolescents, but this chapter will focus on individual work with adolescents and sometimes, their parents. Before outlining specific techniques used, the model’s philosophical and theoretical framework will be described in some detail. This is in the spirit of

Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

288

Personal Construct Methodology

Kelly’s belief that as long as structured methods are closely aligned with a deep understanding of the key theoretical and ethical underpinnings of PCP, they can be a vital part of the overall clinical process. Conversely, it is possible to do harm if techniques are used without care and relevant knowledge and expertise. A level of caution is necessary also because of the overlap between assessment and intervention methods in PCP, and their often-powerful impact. This is in part due to the fact that all of the methods operate along the full continuum of a client’s awareness. As one moves between understanding, awareness and change throughout the therapy process, even the early assessment tools can trigger change. Furthermore, consistent with observations by Geldard and Geldard (1999), the authors consider that much of the unsuccessful work that occurs with teenagers is due to therapists engaging with their clients as if they were either children or adults. On this point, the chapter will begin with a summary of Erikson’s developmental theory as it relates to the key tasks and issues adolescents face and the way these in turn affect the adolescent’s sense of self and his or her world view. Following on, we will outline some research findings on the relative effectiveness of coping styles of adolescents. Given that therapists and counsellors are frequently engaged in helping adolescents find more constructive and meaningful ways of dealing with problems and people (including themselves) in their lives, this general body of knowledge is a useful resource. In order to orient the therapist we will then present key aims of our integrated model for psychological intervention with adolescents. An outline of significant aspects of the therapy process from a PCP perspective will then be undertaken. Six structured assessment/intervention techniques will be then be presented. Excerpts from clinical practice will be included in order to illustrate how the methods are used in a PCP context, in relation to each other, and to show their relationship to other key concepts and components of the integrated model.

Developmental Theory and Psychotherapy Erikson’s (1963) theory of psychosocial stages (across the whole life span) provides a useful developmental framework that can inform clinical practice with young people. Erikson took both a normative and individual view of children and adolescents. At each key developmental stage he outlined the basic conflicts that arise from their physical, social, mental

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

289

and emotional development. Importantly, from a PCP perspective, he presented these conflicts as bipolar concepts.1 He emphasized that the way in which developmental tasks and issues were worked out, determined whether the child’s further development proceeded in a benign or a problematic way. Erikson theorized that the salient task for adolescents is that of forming a coherent sense of social and personal identity, along with managing the conflict that is experienced due to the accompanying sense of identity role confusion. Some reconciliation of these powerful opposites (manifest both internally and externally) is essential in the move towards mature adulthood. The issue of causality will not be addressed here, other than to say that the authors tend to adhere loosely to an interactionist view. That is, the extent to which the primary developmental task gets adequately addressed at each stage will depend on a combination of numerous factors. Examples include: genetic predisposition of the child; parents’ and child’s personality factors and compatibility; cultural and religious norms; education level; available social and emotional support to all parties; as well as other situational factors – such as illness, quality of attachment; and trauma. The impact of trauma will be apparent in the case example of Erika, later in the chapter. From a PCP perspective, the notions of free will and personal choice, channeled through one’s personal constructs, are also critical in shaping the way these developmental conflicts are resolved. On this point, the impact of the following developmental issues will interact with the triggering and ensuing reasons for a young person seeking psychotherapy, as well as on a therapist’s choice and use of particular methods: .

.

1

The shift in sense of self from the concrete to the more abstract. Teenagers are moving from an experience of self as an active agent based on “I can/I can’t” to self-identity defined by “I am/I am not” – with the latter often characterized largely by the nature of their relationship to others – “I belong with/I do not belong with.” The adolescent’s acute need for validation of their fragile and developing sense of self. In the transition to adolescence, as in any life crisis, it is common for the story about the self to fragment and shift from coping to noncoping. Often the story that has sustained the child through the

Trust vs. mistrust at the infancy stage; autonomy vs. shame during early childhood; initiative vs. guilt at play age; and industry vs. inferiority during school age (Erikson, 1985).

290

.

Personal Construct Methodology

earlier years is “forgotten.” A bridge needs to be made between the past, present and future narratives. Kelly’s notion of a transitive diagnosis is pertinent here. He emphasizes that this needs to be a working hypothesis, which provides a link or bridge between the past, present and future, thereby galvanizing the client’s solutions to their problems. Increasing influence of the peer group and the decreasing value given to parental views. A good description of role choices and self-construing among contemporary adolescent girls, for example, is contained in Wiseman’s topical (2002) Queen Bees and Wannabees upon which the movie Mean Girls was based. Roles include: queen bee; wannabes; targets; floaters and bystanders as well as common parental roles.

Erikson also noted that it is important to assess the extent to which the key conflicts and issues of the previous developmental stage (6–11 years), characterized by “industry vs. inferiority,” have been resolved. Residual feelings of incompetence and behavioral inadequacy in relation to skills normally acquired at the earlier stage, for example, literacy, may need to be addressed and practically managed. Erikson’s theory provides an instructive guide for encapsulating clusters of constructs likely to emerge at particular ages and stages, and emphasizes the ongoing struggles that can occur due to the tension between the contrasting poles of these constructs, and between different constructs. In this regard there is a natural fit with the importance Kelly gives to understanding and working with opposites in the therapy setting. These hypothesized normative constructs are experienced and acted upon in a very personal way by each individual adolescent and hold varying degrees of importance to them and to their families. It is the job of the therapist to understand these nuances and to work within the developing construct system of the teen to explore new, more creative and constructive solutions to the dilemmas experienced. In harmony with Kelly’s philosophical underpinnings and heeding developmental theorist’s signpost’s for optimal adolescent functioning, examples of methods will be presented later.

Research on Adolescent Coping Research on adolescent coping has suggested that those who cope best with the tumultuous transition from childhood to adulthood use a

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

291

combination of their personal resources as well as actively seeking out external resources (Frydenberg and Lewis, 2009). Frydenberg (1997) describes three different coping styles used by adolescents in response to stressors: 1. Solving the problem: for example – working towards achieving specific goals; being realistically positive in their outlook; keeping fit; and undertaking relaxing activities. 2. Reference to others: being proactive in making use of what others can offer in terms of emotional, intellectual, practical or spiritual support. A varied source of support is preferable, for example, friends, parents, and professionals. 3. Nonproductive coping: examples include avoidant behaviors and actions, such as: wishful thinking; exaggerated self-blame; catastrophizing; isolation and withdrawal; ignoring the problem; or using alcohol and drugs. The first two styles – solving the problem and reference to others – involve active methods of coping with difficulties, whereas nonproductive coping tends to be relatively passive or less consciously undertaken. Any therapeutic intervention needs to facilitate and extend the use of the first two proactive coping approaches (see Frydenberg and Brandon’s (2007) manual for developing coping skills). Often when an adolescent has been referred to a clinical or educational psychologist, they have got stuck and overly reliant on one or more types of nonproductive coping methods. This process will need to be assessed, understood and made more conscious for the client before any new intervention is undertaken. In this way the subjective logic propelling the nonproductive coping behaviors is revealed, enabling new choices to be examined. This awareness-raising process is a defining aspect of our integrated PCP model and will be evident in the later case discussions, which present the use of specific methods in a particular client-therapist context. A further common problem that arises for teenagers, due to their tendency to be acutely self-focused, is a difficulty adapting to and even perceiving another’s point of view. This can make it hard for them to accept genuine help and support that may be on offer. All of this becomes part of the assessment and psychotherapy process, thus enabling them to more easily identify and make use of positive external sources of support.

292

Personal Construct Methodology

Orienting the Therapist: Basic Aims of the Integrated Model The following basic aims underpin successful psychological intervention and use of specific methods with adolescents:

(a) To be seen as useful within the adolescent’s construing of the referral problem One needs to begin with the adolescent’s perception of events, rather than the referring person’s, although the latter can be contrasted with the adolescent’s view as part of the exploration. Referrals usually arise because an adult (whether a parent, teacher or carer) has concerns about the young person’s behaviour (Ravenette, 2000). . .

.

Consider the personal construct system of the referring person and how the adolescent came to be referred in the first place. Consider the implications of psychological involvement. Ravenette (1980) cautions the clinician to ask certain questions of the referrer such as what are the events, which are the cause of the referral? Who is complained about and by whom? A “pause period” may be necessary in order to resist pressure from parents or teachers about being an instant expert or giving solutions and advice before a thorough assessment has taken place. As with all PCP involvement there is an ongoing interplay between assessment and intervention, whereby the methods of assessment may be therapeutic in themselves. Nonetheless, an initial assessment needs to facilitate an understanding of the adolescent’s experience of herself, significant others and of the reason she is there, in an adequately complex manner.

(b) To explore personal meanings in as transparent a way as possible It is important to engage in a process that is transparent, with the purpose made explicit throughout, as most adolescents do not tolerate psychological ambiguity. Furthermore, in this way the clinician conveys his/her respect for the adolescent, and may in turn earn their respect and trust. Only within such a trusting relationship can the client feel safe enough to fully explore their suffering and open up to new possibilities. Kelly’s preferred notion of the client and clinician as equals grappling with a problem, as opposed to

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

293

clinician as expert authority figure, is particularly relevant and effective in work with teens. During sessions the clinician endeavors to understand the adolescent’s perception of events, their beliefs and feelings about themselves and their relationships. This in itself can be validating for the young person who may be experiencing conflict with parents and peers about how they are behaving and the value of the beliefs they hold.

(c) To ensure the work “has meaning” and offers viable alternative solutions The therapy process needs to have meaning within the adolescent’s current value system at each step of the way and to provide them with practical tools for dealing with daily issues that arise. Their judgements are often swift and so this rapport needs to be established in the first session. The adolescent will usually assess therapy as a positive experience if it is deemed to be useful.

(d) To offer time-limited intervention Unlike psychological intervention with adults, when working with adolescents there is usually a more urgent need to make a rapid connection and to be seen to be offering something useful quickly. The total number of sessions conducted is therefore usually less. While the reasons for timelimited work are numerous, they generally fall into one of two categories: 1. external circumstances – for example, time, distance, finances; 2. internal factors – either the parent or adolescent will only agree to a short series of appointments (teenagers tend to have a low tolerance for uncertainty and anxiety, which can be triggered by the process of psychotherapy). Nonetheless, when there are early relationship trauma or attachment issues, the therapeutic involvement will need to be a longer one. The implementation of these four aims, which guide our integrated model for working with adolescents, is evident in the case vignettes of Erika, Amy, Miranda and Ralph, discussed later.

(e) Be in touch with your own (therapist’s) inner teen When helping young people, it can be beneficial for the clinician to remember what it was like in one’s own life to feel vulnerable – to feel

294

Personal Construct Methodology

that you have little control over parts of your life and your body. This heightened awareness facilitates genuine empathy when engaged with adolescent clients. It can also minimize countertransference issues, such as taking on a negative parent role in relation to one’s younger client. Conversely, during a consultation it is equally important to be spontaneous, open to inner adventure, and willing to explore and discuss passionately held ideals and existential matters of life and death. Methods which directly incorporate the imagination, for example, through using visual imagery, drawing or physical relaxation (all discussed in the method section), can provide something new and therefore appealing.

Personal Construct Psychotherapy for Adolescents: The Therapy Process There are excellent reviews elsewhere which cover Kelly’s professional constructs and their implications for the therapy process, the latter labeled by Kelly as “reconstruction” (Fransella, 1995). See, for example: Kelly, Vol. 1 (1991); Fransella (1995); Fransella and Dalton (1990); Leitner et al. (1993); Leitner and Thomas (2003); Neimeyer and Raskin (2000); Walker and Winter (2005); and Winter (2009). The necessity of a clear set of professional constructs was explained by Kelly as follows: “since all clients have their own personal systems my system should be a system of approach by means of which I can quickly come to understand and subsume the widely varying systems which my clients can be expected to present” (Kelly, 1955/1991, Vol. 2, p. 595). All personal construct psychotherapy begins with a thorough assessment process resulting in the therapist having a good understanding of the client’s understanding. This process, hearing the client’s story in their own words, occurs in numerous ways. Employing verbal and nonverbal structured techniques, in addition to clinical interviewing, engages the teenager as the expert on her or his own life, as well as avoids her or his discomfort with awkward silences that may follow familiar questions. In this way resistance is minimized. Furthermore, use of these compelling, focused methods enables effective and brief interventions (the latter often being required when working with teens). Of these professional constructs, working with cycles underpins much of what we do when engaged in psychotherapy with adolescents (Fransella, 1995). Kelly described three kinds of cycles, concerned with: experience; creativity; and decision-making/control. A brief summary of

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

295

each is presented in Appendix 13.1, for more details see Fransella and Dalton (1990) and Fransella (1995). Kelly theorized that a psychological disorder occurred when there was an imbalance within such cycles – specifically, an imbalance in the contrasting processes, such as tightening and loosening, employed in the day-to-day task of making sense of ourselves, others and life. Thus, “any personal construction which is used repeatedly in spite of consistent validation” constitutes a disorder (Kelly, 1955, p. 835). Walker and Winter (2005) and Winter (2009) have extended this definition by noting that a disorder can generally be characterized by the particular strategy that is overused in the attempt to avoid the threat of invalidation of constructs. For example, not making fully conscious one’s anticipations about what one expects to happen in the first stage of the experience cycle can result in panic attacks or other avoidance behaviours (e.g. Erika, discussed later). Other examples include, being unable to alternate appropriately between loose and tight construing, resulting in depression (e.g. Erika); or spending so little time in the circumspection stage that one acts impulsively (e.g. Miranda, and Ralph discussed later). A key positive element in our work with teenagers is the “newness” factor. They are developmentally primed to look inward and ask, “who am I and what is important to me?” On this point, Kelly’s invitational or “as if” stance offered to clients is particularly suited to adolescents, who are literally trying on various roles and identities for size. They are also geared up to want to take charge of their own choices and lives. Offering them some new tools with which to embark on this adventure, in the context of an intimate role relationship (Leitner, 1988), can be very appealing.

Summary of an Integrated Model of Psychotherapy with Adolescents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Hearing the original stories (parents’ and adolescent’s) Validating the adolescent’s experience (ongoing) Exploring the sense of self and making constructs more conscious Extending the range of constructs about self (loosening) Finding an alternative story (loosening and tightening) Applying the new story to problem situations (making experiments) Firming up the new story and integrating it (tightening)

296

Personal Construct Methodology

Methods Several techniques will be presented that have been developed by PCP therapists or are methods and tools, which may be applied in accord with PC theory under the framework of our integrated model presented earlier. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Ravenette’s “Who Are You” structured interview Personal description method Laddering Drawing Strength cards for kids Relaxation, meditation, guided imagery and metaphors

Ravenette’s “Who Are You?” structured interview Ravenette (1977, 1980) led the way in teaching clinicians how to effectively engage young people in their search for self-understanding and meaning. His “Who Are You” technique (Ravenette, 2000, pp. 195–218) is a structured interview to explore the client’s sense of self, illustrated in the case example of Miranda at the end of this section. To paraphrase Ravenette (2000, p. 197) in explaining the rationale for his methods, Ravenette outlines four issues central to PCP: 1. The way people behave is largely due to how they make sense of themselves and their situation. 2. A “sense of self” vs. “. . . not me” (p. 197), is central to a person’s experiences of life. This experience of self is comprised at varying degrees of consciousness of an awareness of one’s emotions and feelings, cognitions, and behaviors. It contains core and peripheral constructs about “who I am,” the denial of which can produce personal suffering and distress. 3. At its essence, the theory is concerned with the personal meanings that individuals give to the events in their life. Because constructs are bipolar the investigation of personal opposites is an important part of interviewing and of understanding these meanings. Furthermore, “the pursuit of an individual’s personal, as opposed to his purely verbal constructs, should not rest with the superficial elicitation of words but should include some exploration of what those words imply.” (Ravenette, 2000, p. 198)

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

297

4. The tenet of “constructive alternativism” – that there is always another other way of experiencing things, sets the practical aim for the assessment/intervention. Ravenette (2000, p. 198) asks the question: “can a young person come to some alternative sense of himself and his circumstances, thereby creating the possibility of freeing himself, at some point in the future, of the burden of those past constructions out of which his actions have arisen?” He frequently emphasized that “the basic tool in the interview is the question” (Ravenette, 2000, p. 198) and quotes Kelly, saying, “a pat answer is the enemy to a fresh question” (Ravenette, 2000, p. 198). He also notes that the opposite is true. Ravenette, therefore, developed methods of interviewing with formalized questions designed to probe a deeper response. A number of interviewing strategies for this purpose were thus proposed: .

. .

.

To ask not one question but three. The three key questions are: – “Who are you?” – “What sort of person are you?” – “What sort of person do other people say you are?” (Ravenette, 2000, p. 216) For each root question, ask for three answers. For each of the answers, in order to ascertain what is denied, ask for a contrast to what has been said. “How would you describe a person not like that?” To ask for the importance or relevance of an observation in the person’s life and to pursue that to more and more fundamental levels. The basic question is “is that important to you?” and then “and that?” and then followed by “how come?” If they say it is not important, ask “what sort of person would say it was important?” “Why might that be?”

The following case example illustrates the “Who Are You?” technique and the seven points summarizing the therapy process of our model. Five consultations were undertaken. Miranda Miranda, aged 13, was referred by her mother who was concerned that Miranda had been telling lies and starting damaging rumors about herself amongst her peer group. She had also had several recent minor episodes of cutting herself. Miranda’s mother was at a loss to

298

Personal Construct Methodology

explain the changes in her daughter’s behavior. She said they had a stable and loving home, and that Miranda had always been successful in her chosen activities and at school. At a joint interview with the therapist, mother described how in infancy Miranda had received much attention for a medical problem and through childhood she had tended to overdramatize. She had won prizes for gymnastics and dancing and had a good relationship with her parents and siblings. She had a tendency to tell lies but this had only become problematic in the past year. In a separate interview, Miranda told the therapist she did not think the lying behavior was for attention, but instead it “just happens” then she starts to believe it, and it all seems real. She said she also sometimes has dreams and then thinks they are real. Miranda showed no clinical signs of formal thought disorder or unusual beliefs. The importance of the peer group was evident in Miranda’s description of the group structure in her year. She described how she had been trying to hang around with the “popular” group but had later learnt they were saying things behind her back. When asked about the cutting, Miranda told the therapist she sometimes tried to hurt herself to take away the pain when she was feeling down. She had been feeling that she was not worth anything and that “everything she did was a mistake and that she was ‘ditsy.’” What she wanted was to “just be myself.” It was evident that in the transition from childhood to early adolescence Miranda’s sense of identity was in a state of flux and she was no longer receiving the same forms of attention that she had been accustomed to getting when younger. Her tendency to exaggerate was now not regarded as amusing or harmless. In short she had lost much of her special status. As she moved into an age where peer relationships become paramount, she had become dislodged from her past sense of who she was – grounded in physical achievement and attention. In this way Miranda was similar to many adolescents for whom the sense of self, constructed on the achievements of earlier developmental stages, is not adequate to meet the current demands. Ravenette’s “Who Are You?” exercise was used in order to untangle some of Miranda’s constructs about herself and to understand some of her role confusion and poor choices. In response to the first part of the Ravenette exercise “Who Are You?” Miranda stated her name, her age and that she was a dancer. Her name was important to her because it incorporated the names of her grandmothers. She said she knew she was part of the family and

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

299

having grandparents’ names meant they were always with her. Her age was important because she was a teenager and “you enjoy yourself most in the teenage years.” Being a dancer was important because she loved doing it. In response to the second part of the Ravenette exercise “What sort of a person are you?” Miranda said, “I’m outgoing, I like to have fun, I’m pretty daring.” During elaboration of these self-constructs, Miranda explained that she was not nervous to perform, she was more willing to do things than her friends, she liked to socialize and hang out with friends, and if someone dared her to play a practical joke she would do it because “you get a good laugh out of it and enjoy it more.” In response to inquiry regarding “someone not like that,” Miranda described a person who would be quiet, really nervous, would not go out with friends and would stay home with family or by herself. She explained it was more fun to be outgoing than to be timid or quiet. She also commented that some people think she is too outgoing and her brother tells her she shows off to his friends. In response to the third part of the exercise “What do other people say?”, Miranda said her mother would say she had a warm heart and her brother would say she is an attention seeker. She reported that her three friends would say “I’m an angel . . . innocent and with a sense of purity . . . funloving . . . really gorgeous and I’ve got a warm heart . . . a flower, pretty on the outside and interesting on the inside.” In this way, we developed a framework for understanding her behaviors that did not judge her or undermine her confidence, but helped to validate and strengthen the more positive aspects of her sense of self. The tool facilitated a loosening process, enabling an exploration of ideas about herself, which Miranda had not previously clearly articulated. More importantly, it assisted Miranda to understand how her desire to be regarded as special, fun-loving and interesting, was leading her to create stories of a selfaggrandising nature. The consideration of “someone not like that” made explicit Miranda’s fears of being seen as someone who spent time by herself and was not fun. In adolescent parlance, she would risk being seen as a “loner” or even a “loser.” While the current contrast pole did not provide Miranda with an appealing or viable option, she began to consider other alternatives, incorporating elements of both poles. As an example, we looked at situations where it may be possible both to have fun and spend time with family. Although the Ravenette exercise began with her statement about belonging in the family, it quickly became apparent that the influence of her

300

Personal Construct Methodology

peer group was increasingly important in determining her sense of self, and was likely to remain dominant as she moved through early adolescence. Nevertheless, she was able to employ her valuing of family life to embrace the notion of identifying with family as well as with friends. The articulation of herself as someone who liked to have fun and do daring things was considered alongside a growing disquiet that sometimes she might be too outgoing and “ditsy”. She said that she began telling stories (like her friends) about being anorexic in order to fit in. It was clear that while she liked to see herself as doing daring things, the lying behaviour was alien to her core values and caused her embarrassment and pain. The articulation of constructs about the self led to an understanding that she had been cutting in order to take away the pain when these different aspects of herself were in conflict and when she felt she was always making mistakes. Her statement “I want to be myself” served as an incentive to resolve her confusion between these different experiences of her sense of self. Miranda began to see her motivation for lying as positive, but her actions as misguided or “wrong choices.” When she reconstrued her lying in this nonjudgmental way she was able to move forward. Previously, she had experienced shame around the lying as it had felt alien to her sense of self, and this in turn had restricted her acceptance of responsibility. Once Miranda had developed a more comprehensive story around her problem behavior, she was able to see more clearly how it had evolved and the meaning it had for her. She was also clearer that she did not want to continue this way. Miranda reported that on several occasions recently when she realised she was lying, she had been able to stop and say, “I’m just kidding.” This led to a discussion about needing some sort of pause button. She warmed to the idea and was able to utilize her imagination to create a visual image of herself pressing a pause button so that she could stop and think before launching into a story. Considerable time was also spent emphasizing personal qualities she felt particularly good about and in exploring situations where these qualities would indeed be regarded as strengths. This process of tightening, or firming up adaptive behaviours, became an important focus in the following sessions. Finally, in creating a narrative to encapsulate the whole experience, we arrived at a story, which reconstrued her lying as “losing a sense of who she was” and “making wrong choices” in the search for a valid identity. Her final understanding was that she had grown up with a strong sense of who she was, but had lost touch with this as she sought acceptance in her peer group. Her map for moving forward into the future included a need to stay

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

301

connected to the person she knew herself to be, incorporating her strengths and qualities, her sense of fun and her family values. At the last session Miranda appeared to be maintaining a good balance between peer relationships and family oriented activity and she and her mother reported a reduction in storytelling and no further cutting.

Personal description method This pencil and paper technique provides a deceptively simple way of entering the adolescent’s world of significant relationships – past, present and future. It was developed by Prisgrove (Stein, 2007) and can be used at any stage of therapy. It is particularly useful as an assessment method for eliciting salient constructs and themes, and most importantly places the young person in the role of expert in their life as they consent to allow you into their inner world. There is no need to “motivate” them to participate as they are engaged on all levels with the content under discussion. What is required from the therapist as always, is respect, “credulous listening” (Fransella and Dalton, 1990, p. 18) and the clinical expertise to appropriately manage whatever is triggered by these inquiries. We have found that pencil and paper tools work particularly well with adolescents, as whilst they begin by putting the topics of discussion at arm’s length, paradoxically both therapist and client are soon thrust into the intensity of the social connections being explored (see the case example of Erika, following the next section on laddering). Clients are asked to name about 10–15 key people in their life, now and when growing up, including themselves. There needs to be a mix of positive and negative individuals in terms of their association to the client. Flexibility is important in this elicitation process. For example, if there is a paucity of positive adults named, a favourite writer, artist, musician or movie star of each sex can be used. The names are written on the left-hand side of the paper and on the right are written the provided descriptions of each person. Like the Ravenette technique described earlier, clients are asked for at least three key qualities that would enable the therapist to get a sense of the character of the person. On completion, recurring themes are circled and considered, each on a separate piece of paper. As with all PCP techniques, the client’s exact words are recorded. Personal opposite poles are then elicited for each of these constructs and then both poles are laddered (see technique 3 for instructions) to explore possible meaning links between:

302 . . . .

Personal Construct Methodology

each peripheral construct and the corresponding core constructs each set of bipolar peripheral constructs all of the above and the issues which brought them into therapy all of the above and their personal strengths.

The completion of this technique usually takes a number of sessions because the investigations are so wide ranging. Clinical exploration of the intense feelings triggered during the exercise is an essential component of the therapeutic work. It is also possible to use the method more loosely in the context of a clinical interview. As with many PCP methods, although initially intended as an assessment tool, it is common for significant behavioral and experiential changes to occur during the process of this exploration.

Laddering Having elicited salient bipolar constructs through a series of questions like those mentioned above, Hinkle’s (1965) technique of “laddering” (see Chapter 3 (Walker and Crittenden) this volume), through asking “why” or “what’s good about . . . for you?” is one of a number of methods of working with peripheral constructs in order to call forth implied constructs which are of a higher order of abstraction. These higher order, and eventually, core constructs contain an intense feeling component and also a sense of overriding personal importance. Kelly (1955) and later Rowe (1982), hypothesized that this is because these bipolar core constructs are inextricably linked with our deepest sense of self or personal identity on the one hand, and our sense of annihilation on the other. Kelly further elaborated that “optimal functioning” (1955, pp. 482–483) individuals have a hierarchical construct system in this manner, but with a stable core structure. In this way, effective comprehension of day-to-day experiences occurs mainly through our peripheral constructs, without calling up or threatening our core structure. When this is the case, Kelly states that the core structure is inclusive enough to deal with the complexities of life, but not too permeable. In the therapy context, peripheral constructs can be examined and changed without triggering much anxiety. The same cannot be said for core constructs. Furthermore, if a person’s core construct system is too permeable, he will experience more events in his life unduly personally, when compared to other people. This can result in, for example, hypochondriacal behavior, or in paranoia, or withdrawal. Teenagers in

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

303

particular, may have difficulties with their core construct system, as it is a time of transition. One’s adult personal identity is really only beginning to be formed and “tried on for size” in this period of their life. This involves experimenting with various “identities” in day-to-day life and leaving some of their earlier roles behind. There is a subtle art to laddering, which improves and develops with one’s clinical experience (see Fransella and Dalton, 1990; Fransella, 2003; Rowe, 1982; Neimeyer et al., 2000). Ravenette’s (2000, p. 199) comments are pertinent: “To put into words what has been hidden, or ill-formulated, or half-sensed, is to allow a degree of self-understanding and, therefore, also a sense of self-direction that was not previously possible.” The simple task of eliciting a personal, rather than dictionary contrast pole in the process of laddering can be most illuminating in regard to choices made, values held and implied behavior. In the early stages of professional practice however, it is strongly advised to ladder only the preferred (positive) pole of the construct. It is a deceptively potent technique and can swiftly open the client to overarching nonverbal and preverbal experiences, often associated with feelings of intense distress, or fear of being overwhelmed. When used with the experienced clinician’s sense of therapeutic timing however, the experience of laddering and ensuing discussions can be especially positive and galvanizing for adolescents. It is as if they are developmentally primed to grasp and take hold of core constructs. Furthermore, at the beginning of the therapy process the contrast poles of a client’s constructs can feel like a painful clash of opposites. Through the rigorous, structured exploration process of laddering, s/he commonly experiences a freeing reconciliation of these same opposite poles or has produced new ones. In this way, at the end of a successful course of psychotherapy, each party will witness evidence of positive changes and creative growth demonstrated in the laddering process. In the case example below, laddering was used extensively during a 4-session intervention with a 16-year-old girl. The vignette serves as an example of our integrated model, whereby the way of working clinically with Erika was informed by developmental concerns and attention to her coping resources, within a PCP framework. Erika Erika had recently moved to Australia from a third world country after experiencing frequent tragic violent episodes against her family and extended family. Her parents and the school Erika attended were extremely worried about her. She was described by her mother as being depressed and withdrawn, possibly anorexic, having headaches most days, and hating

304

Personal Construct Methodology Sensitive

Loud and brusque

have a bit more intuition, know the grounds on where to tread with people’s feelings

ends up in trouble (most of the people I know who are like that)

you can help people more

saying things impulsively or whats on their mind

makes me feel good (a feeling I get inside- like I can do something that I can make people’s lives better, if they need it

hurt someone, or provoke someone

there is something I can do (individual purpose)

it’s not right, it’s unfair

physically dangerous

I feel in myself everyone is human and everyone deserves a chance and you shouldn’t just go around taking that chance away end up with lots of people with no self worth, hating themselves

Figure 13.1 Example of laddering.

school. The Prozac she was on was apparently not working. She had also been unwell with a virus for a couple of months, but said she had been physically fine for the past several months. The therapist began as always by listening carefully to Erika’s story. She described herself as sad, anxious, retreating a lot and feeling she was “going to implode.” In reviewing her past, she told the therapist that when she was about 13, depression came upon her out of the blue. She was happy to do the Personal Description Method – which seemed to trigger a new energy. It was as if the therapist and client were stepping aside from these weighty topics that troubled everyone including her, while staying within her area of expertise. The results were informative regarding family dynamics and individuals’ characteristics as experienced by Erika, and for guiding further interventions. Laddering was used to further explore the personal meanings of salient constructs elicited in the Personal Description Method. For example, the positive construct pole “sensitive” (Figure 13.1) was aligned with a negative pole “not confident” (Figure 13.2), which created a painful dilemma for her. The kind, likeable people she knew did not tend to express

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents Not very confident

Feeling a greater sense of self worth

can come over as cold towards other people

can stand up more for what you believe in

people tend to keep their distance from you - they feel uncomfortable

do the things you want to do

gives you a sense of fulfillment

people should always feel they can go to someone

helps you deal with things - can function better by having a sense of wholeness

OP

(if not) in the world today we have so few sensitive people

world calamity

305

S PO

E IT

the way everyone should be

falling back into a lack of self worth, eg. “I ”d better not try” “better not say that because I’d probably be wrong”

not doing, not saying

you’d just follow what everyone else told you to do

wouldn’t have a life

depression

Figure 13.2 Example of laddering.

negative feelings. Conversely, those who were confident were often also “loud and brusque” (Figure 13.1) and troublesome in various ways. She observed that she was currently “not doing what she wants” (Figure 13.3) much of the time. The therapist stated that that was an extremely important observation, one that would be good to know more about. She agreed. Homework was therefore set with the goal of noticing and recording what happens when she didn’t do what she wanted, or when she “bottled things up.” This process of neutral self-observation she found to be both illuminating and galvanizing. It was apparent that almost all of her coping strategies were in Frydenberg’s nonproductive coping category. To remedy this, relaxation

306

Personal Construct Methodology Don’t do what I want

Follow you heart

scared of what others will say

sense of fulfillment

feel caught in the middle (should I do what i want or should I do what other people want me to do)

don’t feel cut off from self

have that feeling of wholeness get left behind- they all move on

feel unimportant

makes you feel like your meaningless to people- you don’t have an impact

don’t exist

Figure 13.3 Example of laddering.

training and stress management techniques were incorporated into our work. Later in the course of therapy she set specific goals stemming from the homework exercise, all of which she achieved easily. Some of these outcomes included: using her relaxation and “letting-go” methods daily; actively participating in school writing and musical activities; and no longer being gripped by worry about schoolwork. Not surprisingly, she reported no more headaches, enjoying and achieving at school and feeling happy in herself and more comfortable in her family. Figures 13.1–13.3 show three examples of laddering salient constructs (elicited during her Personal Description Method), which formed the focus of the work between therapist and client. We began with “sensitive” – deemed a preferred, positive quality. The opposite quality she labelled “loud and brusque” (Figure 13.1). What can be seen above confirms that being sensitive for Erika is inextricably linked to an existential sense of purpose and meaning in her life. The therapist endorsed this personal strength, as being a quality of which the world needs more. By contrast, being “loud and brusque” implied a dangerous, destructive path. The subjective logic laid bare in this way explained and clarified the extent of her distress and suffering up until now and opened her eyes to new choices. The therapist

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

307

was able to trace her laddering responses saying “no wonder you have felt ‘depression’ and as if you ‘don’t exist’.” We then explored ways of being confident and assertive in a respectful manner, such that she would not view her behavior as “loud and brusque.” First naming and then fully exploring the implications of “feeling a greater sense of self worth” (Figure 13.2) and “follow your heart” (Figure 13.3) – both of which were deemed her preferred mode but not currently acted upon, greatly mobilised her desire for change. In fact “follow your heart” became Erika’s inner catch cry, enabling her to achieve the goals she set herself. There was a wonderful fit between these words and her deepest values, feelings, beliefs and aspirations. She had taken on the bold, imaginative qualities that she so admired in the favourite writer nominated in her Personal Description Method. Furthermore, positive behavioral changes in accord with these differences in the way she now saw herself and life were wide ranging. Adolescents are developmentally primed to internalise their heroes and positive role models in this way. For this reason, it is valuable to incorporate them into the therapy process.

Drawing When using laddering with teenagers, a self-defeating cycle often becomes apparent. This can usefully be set out visually via drawing (see Figure 13.4). Putting the issue at arms length in this way can free up discussions and I enjoy teasing him

He’ll fight me back

So he won’t fight me

I like to see him scared

He’ll fight me for serious

I’ll make him scared

Figure 13.4 Ralph’s cycle.

308

Personal Construct Methodology

explorations for new ways of handling things. Having drawn the sequence, the client is then asked at which points of the cycle he could change or interrupt the cycle, in order to avoid old habits and try out new behaviors. The example that follows shows 14-year-old Ralph, looking at an instance of uncontrolled aggression in which he terrorized his younger sibling. When asked what he got out of it, his reply “I enjoy teasing him” showed the beginning of the cycle. After each reply he was asked “What’s good about that for you?” until the paradox in the cycle became evident to him. The therapist stated, “You make him fight so he won’t fight you.” This provided an opportunity for exploring more successful ways of avoiding fights. Ralph was invited to mark where he could stop the circle, and then asked, “What can you do to avoid starting the circle?” He answered, “I can talk to him but not tease him, or I can ignore him and walk away.” At this point he saw the matter instead as one of power – “You have the power. What can you do with it?” He regarded the choice as like responding to a frustrating fly. He could see it as annoying or not annoying depending also on what he chose to do (Figure 13.5). The Intersection (Stein, 2007) is another powerful technique that makes use of drawing the contrast poles of constructs and is based on the narrative therapist’s emphasis on life choices (White and Epston, 1990). It combines the universal metaphor of coming to an intersection in one’s life with guided visual imagery, in order to clarify life choices. Basically, a difficult impasse Annoys me - like a fly - hit him

Not annoy me - like a fly - open the window & let him fly out

Figure 13.5 Ralph’s alternatives (annoyed – not annoyed).

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

309

that the client experiences is construed as being like a crossroad, offering the opportunity for new choices. The various endpoints are identified and labelled by the client during a guided imagery exercise. These are then drawn. Preferences and pathways are mapped out and their relationship to specific daily and future situations are discussed. The contrasting poles of the intersection are then used as internal yardsticks with which to identify her choices and to assess whether she is on the right track. When the timing is appropriate in the therapy process, its use can both stimulate and consolidate desired positive changes which have previously eluded the client (see Stein, 2007, for detailed instructions and illustrative case examples).

Focusing on strengths and qualities in the self – using strength cards Because of the adolescent’s acute need for validation and sensitivity to challenge or invalidation, and their low tolerance for discomfort in a therapeutic situation, it becomes imperatve to assist them to identify strengths and qualities they already have but have either not articulated or valued. Methods using cards, such as the St Luke’s (1996) “Strength Cards For Kids” provide a simple way of eliciting a broader range of constructs about the self. The pack contains 40 different cards – each depicting an animal in a scene, thereby illustrating the corresponding phrase written on the card. Examples of the latter include: “I am strong”; “I am loving”; “I think a lot”; “ I will try new things” and “I can find a way to do things.” The images and phrases are appealing and stimulate dialogue about their strengths and positive qualities, as well as offering the opportunity to think about new possibilities. The cards can be utilized in a variety of ways. One of the simplest is to encourage the adolescent to sort the cards into “ones that apply to me” and “ones that don’t apply to me.” Most ask for a third category labelled “not sure” or “sometimes.” Quite a lot of discussion can take place around the cards. In clinical practice, for example, depressed youngsters who are unable to give themselves many positive qualities, have been able to allocate more when asked how a parent or close friend might sort them. The following vignette describes how Ravenette’s “Who Are You” structured interview and the St Luke’s strength cards were used as part of our integrated PCP model for clinical work with a highly distressed adolescent girl. This was conducted over four sessions. Amy Amy (13 years) presented as distressed and not coping since her mother had commenced a new relationship. She had lost interest in food, was

310

Personal Construct Methodology

not sleeping well and was showing signs of regression and disorganisation. It was clear that Amy was feeling rejected and experiencing a resurgence of separation anxiety. She cried frequently, particularly when her mother went out, and was grieving the loss of time and attention. It became apparent that Amy construed herself as “unable to cope,” a common construct amongst young people suffering separation anxiety. The Ravenette “Who Are You” exercise revealed that Amy was in other ways a mature thinking, self-reflective girl with good inner recourses. She identified herself firstly as “a person,” meaning “to have a heart and soul”, secondly as “a living creature,” meaning “to breathe, smell, see, hear . . . so you can experience things” and thirdly as “me,” meaning “to be unique because everyone’s different.” Further, Amy saw herself as “a fun person,” important because “people want to be around you”, as “a person who can laugh at themselves,” thus able to be more relaxed and not so serious about everything, and as “a sporty person – for health and it’s fun.” Using the Strength Cards for Kids (1996), we began an exploration of additional qualities Amy felt she possessed. This extended into a discussion of coping skills and strengths that Amy could identify as ones she would normally employ, but with which she had temporarily lost connection. She arrived at the following descriptive list of strengths and qualities: “being able to think things through; being able to feel things; learning from experience; being myself; being able to see the positives; being able to laugh at myself; being sporty; being helpful; being friendly; and being fun.” Amy’s list was then used as the foundation for an exploration of how she could apply these strengths and qualities to her present situation. Through this process she engaged in reconstruing herself as a girl who has ways of coping with adversity, rather than a girl who cannot cope. Together we devised some tasks and experiments that would indicate whether she was utilizing the personal strengths she had available to her. Following some quick successes, Amy was able to return to her view of herself as someone who can deal with life problems even when experiencing anxiety. In essence, her story became one of “coping” rather than “falling apart.”

Relaxation, meditation, guided imagery and stories – expanding their productive coping skills As noted at the beginning of this chapter, for many adolescent clients it is helpful to add to their repertoire of active coping and problem-solving skills. An explanation of the importance and mechanics of being able to

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

311

relax (e.g., in response to anxiety), using their imagination as an aid, and training in these approaches, appeals to many adolescents. The inclusion of images, symbols and metaphors in these techniques also appeals to their love of fresh, creative approaches. Others however, may prefer more active methods of unwinding, such as sport, training, drawing, playing music, dancing etc. In general, a combination is best. It can be constructive to end therapy sessions with a brief guided relaxation, varying it somewhat each session. In this way they can determine which method they prefer, for example: tensing and relaxing; letting go of muscle groups; meditation and using the breath; and positive imagery to relax (see Hall et al., 2006; Geldard and Geldard, 1999, for detailed techniques and instructions). Setting practice homework can also be appropriate, for example using guided relaxation or meditation CDs. For others, listening to relaxing music is a preferred option. It is worthwhile to employ both suggested imagery (e.g., “feel your mind to be as clear and smooth as a still blue lake – when thoughts arise, watch them naturally disappear into the air like tiny bubbles”) and personal images that come to them. Incorporating an awareness of bodily sensations into our work is helpful in fulfilling the overall therapy goals and a valuable tool for the rest of their life. Gendlin’s (1982) “focusing”2 is another useful technique in this regard. It too, has the twofold aim through enhanced awareness, of taking charge and letting go. Similarly, combining an hypnotic induction with a specific guided imagery exercise, the “windows exercise”3 (see Stein, 2007, for instructions and case example), can facilitate a profound and creative exploration of the adolescent’s personal opposite poles, in relation to a problem. The surprise element common to such imagery experiences can have a transforming impact. For example, a 14-year-old teenage client was taken aback by the spontaneous appearance of images of her parents’ separation many years earlier in each window and stated, “I didn’t think my emptiness now had anything to do with that!” This opened the door for a new exploration of links between feelings and issues that were previously not consciously available to her. Again, sense of timing is critical in the effective use of such approaches. 2

Following a relaxation induction, the client is asked to notice a “felt sense” in her body. A number of steps are taken in the exercise, going back and forth between the bodily sensation and a verbal label that accurately fits this sense. 3 Two imagined windows are visualized in which opposite experiences are seen, one positive and one negative, concerning a troubling experience.

312

Personal Construct Methodology

Telling and reading stories, such as the Buddhist tales in “Opening the Door of Your Heart” by Ajahn Brahm can be a wonderful way of indirectly circling and containing psychological work. Adolescents generally want to relate their own painful predicaments to broader existential and philosophical conflicts. Whether read aloud or later as homework, the humor and the surprise elements of these stories have a loosening effect, which later discussion can tighten as needed. A favourite of young clients is “Two Bad Bricks” (Brahm, 2008, pp. 7–10), which provides an engaging Buddhist take on the futility of exaggerated negative thinking. From a PCP perspective the above are all examples of loosening methods, in that they involve experiencing and feeling rather than judging or structure. Creative new solutions to old problems can surface in remarkable ways. As noted by Fransella and Dalton (1990, p. 86), “If your body loosens so will your constructions.” When any loosening procedures are used it is important that time is allowed at the end of the session for adequate tightening and closure, such that they can return to their daily reality (outside the therapy room) in a grounded state.

Summary We have put forward an integrated model for working therapeutically with adolescents under the broad umbrella of PCP. This was by way of extending Kelly’s (1955) rich approach to adult psychology and Ravenette’s (2000) inventive PC applications with children and adolescents. Neimeyer (1988) terms these later developments in PCP “theoretically progressive integrationism,” incorporating theoretical concepts as well as methods from compatible approaches (see also Raskin, 2007). In our case, Erikson’s (1963) developmental theory and findings from research on adolescent coping, were shown to be fruitful components of our model. We also put forward a range of PCP and related assessment and intervention methods, in the tradition of Kelly’s openness to incorporating any appropriate technique in a competent manner. The central qualities of PCP were argued to be particularly appealing to and effective with adolescents. Some include: the egalitarian approach to the therapeutic relationship, the adventurous, nonjudgemental inquiry into meaning exploration and the rapid pace of much PCP work. Through a combined introspective and practical emphasis, our model employs techniques which:

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

313

1. explore, raise awareness of and enable a reconstruction of one’s sense of identity and self (e.g. personal description method, Ravenette’s “Who am I?” excercise, laddering); as well as 2. validate and enhance strengths, qualities and coping skills that the young person already possesses (e.g. through the use of Strength Cards for Kids, training in relaxation and guided imagery techniques). The use of such structured techniques provides a nonthreatening opportunity to find a more effective balance in the use of their loose and tight construing processes. As a result, making choices and taking responsibility are no longer experienced as being mutually exclusive. As illustrated through the clinical case excerpts, it was apparent that through immersing themselves in this way an experimental approach to their life and relationships, they got a taste for “optimal functioning” which will hopefully endure.

References Brahm, A. (2008) Opening the Door of Your Heart – and Other Buddhist Tales of Happiness, Hatchette Australia, Sydney. Epting, F.R. (1988) Journeying into the personal constructs of children. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 53–61. Erikson, E. (1963) Childhood and Society, W.W. Norton, New York. Erikson, E. (1985) The Life Cycle Completed – A Review, W.W. Norton, New York. Fransella, F. (1995) George Kelly, Sage, London. Fransella, F. (2003) Some skills and tools for personal construct practitioners, in International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology (ed. F. Fransella), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Fransella, F. and Dalton, P. (1990) Personal Construct Counselling in Action, Sage, London. Fraser, A., Gurner, J. Van-Hall, H., and Vicary, D. (2000) Living with Teenagers. Department for Child Protection, Western Australia. Frydenberg, E. (1997) Adolescent Coping – Theoretical and Research Perspectives, Routledge, London. Frydenberg, E. and Brandon, C. (2007) The Best of Coping – Developing Coping Skills for Adolescents, ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria. Frydenberg, E. and Lewis, R. (2009) The relationship between problem-solving efficacy and coping amongst Australian adolescents. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 37, 51–64. Geldard, K. and Geldard, D. (1999) Counselling Adolescents, Sage, London.

314

Personal Construct Methodology

Gendlin, E.T. (1982) Focusing, Bantam Books, New York. Hall, E., Hall, C., Stradling, P., and Young, D. (2006) Guided Imagery – Creative Interventions in Counselling and Psychotherapy, Sage, London. Hinkle, D.N. (1965) The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of implications. PhD dissertation. Ohio State University. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York. Kelly, G.A. (1963) A Theory of Personality – the Psychology of Personal Constructs, W.W. Norton, New York. Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs (2 volumes), Routledge, London. Leitner, L.M. (1988) Terror, risk and reverence: experiential personal construct psychotherapy. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 25–61. Leitner, L.M., Dunnet, N.G.M., Anderson, T.M., and Meshot, C.M. (1993) Unique aspects of personal construct psychotherapy, in Critical Issues in Personal Construct Psychotherapy (eds L.M. Leitner and N.G.M. Dunnet), Krieger, Malabar, Florida. Leitner, L.M. and Thomas, J. (2003) Experiential personal construct psychotherapy, in International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology (ed. F. Fransella). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. Neimeyer, R.A. (1988) Integrative directions in personal construct therapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 1(4), 283–297. Neimeyer, R.A., Anderson, A., and Stockton, L. (2000) Snakes versus ladders: A validation of laddering technique as a measure if hierarchical structure. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 13, 85–105. Neimeyer, R.A. and Raskin, J.D. (2000) Constructions of Disorder: Meaning-making Frameworks for Psychotherapy, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Prisgrove, P. (1990) Personal communication on “Personal Description Method” for eliciting personal constructs. Raskin, J.D. (2007) Assimilative integration in constructivist psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 17, 50–69. Ravenette, T. (1977) Personal construct theory: an approach to the psychological investigation of children and young people, in New Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (ed. D. Bannister), Academic Press, London. Ravenette, T. (1980) The exploration of consciousness: personal construct interventions with children, in Personal Construct Psychology: Psychotherapy and Personality (eds A.W. Landfield and L.M. Leitner), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Ravenette, T. (2000) Personal Construct Theory in Educational Psychology: A Practitioner’s View, Whurr, London. Rowe, D. (1982) The Construction of Life and Death, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester.

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

315

Stein, M. (2007) Nonverbal techniques in personal construct psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 20, 103–125. Strength Cards For Kids (1996) St Luke’s, Bendigo, Victoria. Walker, B. and Winter, D.A. (2005) Psychological disorder and reconstruction, in Personal Construct Psychotherapy – Advances in Theory, Practice and Research (eds D.A. Winter and L.L. Viney), Whurr, London, pp. 21–34. White, M. and Epston, D. (1990) Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends, Norton, New York. Winter, D. (2009) The personal construct psychology view of psychological disorder: did Kelly get it wrong? In Personal Constructivism: Theory and Applications (eds L.M. Leitner and J.C. Thomas), Pace University, New York, pp. 279–295. Wiseman, R. (2002) Queen Bees and Wannabes – Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends and Other Realities of Adolescence, Three Rivers Press, CA.

Appendix: Kelly’s Experience Cycle, Creativity Cycle and Decision-Making Cycle Experience cycle As shown in Figure A13.1, Kelly described the cycle of experiencing (construing) as having five stages beginning with anticipation and ending with a reconstruction of events. The second stage involves commitment (to a particular course of action or experiment). The third stage consists of an encounter with what is going on. Following an openness to this involvement, the fourth stage results in a confirmation or disconfirmation of our original anticipations. In regard to the fifth stage Kelly notes, “If he fails to reconstrue events, even though they keep repeating themselves, he minimizes his experience” (Kelly, 1963, p. 172). As with all aspects of PCP, the importance of completing this cycle is in the process, that is, in the impact felt and absorbed by a person when a new understanding of a situation or themselves occurs. It is not simply a matter of a cognitive or logical assessment of being correct or incorrect in terms of whether things turned out the way we predicted. Furthermore, Kelly stated that even quite dramatic changes could be transitory unless accompanied by what he termed the interpretive attitude – a general openness to reconstructions and experimentation in one’s daily life. Of particular relevance for the optimal development of adolescents are the following three values underlying the experience cycle: the powerful idea

316

Personal Construct Methodology

1. Anticipation

5. Constructive revision

4. Confirmation/ Disconfirmation

2. Commitment

3. Encounter

Figure A13.1 Experience cycle.

of self-creation and recreation; the notion of choice; and the emphasis on taking responsibility for our own actions.

Creativity cycle Fransella (1995) contends that the “The whole of the psychotherapy encounter is seen as a creative process which involves a series of creativity cycles” (p. 74). When used as a therapy technique, one usually begins by facilitating looser construing of a client’s tightly construed problem, e.g. through dream images or brainstorming, and ends with tightened, validated construing. Kelly describes tight construing as that which “leads to unvarying predictions” and loose construing as that “which leads to varying predictions” (Fransella, 1995, p. 72). Both have an important role to play for optimal functioning. The main point of the creativity cycle is the capacity to keep “cycling” through from tight – loose – tight – loose as is necessary for a complete reconstruing of a situation in which one has felt stuck. As an aside, the products of loosening techniques in therapy can be extremely useful triggers for the therapist to loosen their own tight construing of the client, their difficulties and what they need.

Personal Construct Psychotherapy Techniques with Adolescents

317

CPC decision-making cycle This process is to do with decision-making and control. It is described as following the steps of: 1. Circumspection – in which our options are viewed 2. Pre-emption – where the alternatives are weighed up and considered 3. Control – whereupon a choice or decision is made about how to behave. For adolescents, the process of consciously weighing up choices, and then of taking responsibility for those choices made and the subsequent outcomes, is usually a necessary component to any psychotherapy. By contrast, it is common at the onset of therapy to hear such phrases as: “it just happened”; “they made me do it”; “I can’t control it” etc.

Index

ABC model 89, 91–106, 132–43 applications 89, 91–106, 132–43 Australian adolescents examples 132–43 case examples 96–8, 99–100 concepts 89, 91–106, 132–8 decisions 99–100 definition 91–6 drunk-driver case 101–3 ECM 132–43 examples 96–8, 99–100, 132–43 facilitators 101–5 further directions 99–106 institutional care and respecting dignity example 103–4 positive and negative implications of poles 93–106, 132–4 post-traumatic stress disorder example 99–100 restorative justice and dehumanization example 101–3 Sierra Leone psychiatric hospital example 104–5 social skills case example 96–8 social systems 99–106 systematic ABCs 100–6 therapeutic options 95–8 triple loop learning 105

accommodation of schema 202, 249 acting in therapy 271 adolescents 19, 120–1, 129, 132–43, 232, 234–9, 287–317 see also children Amy’s example 293, 309–10 ‘as if ’ stance benefits 295 assessments 120–1, 129, 132–43, 287–317 Australia 129, 132–43, 232, 234–9, 287–313 awareness-raising processes 291–317 bipolar constructs 289, 290, 296–317 communications 291–317 construing 292–317 coping 289–91, 303–13 Dana’s unprotected sex example 134–6, 143 developmental stages 288–90, 312–13 drawings/pictures 294, 296, 307–9, 313 ECM 129, 132–43 Erika’s trauma example 289, 293, 295, 303–7 fights 307–9 identity 289–317

Personal Construct Methodology, First Edition. Edited by Peter Caputi, Linda L. Viney, Beverly M. Walker and Nadia Crittenden. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

320

Index

adolescents (Continued ) integrated assessment/treatment model 287–317 Jade’s ‘coming out’ example 138–40, 143 Jono’s intravenous drug use example 136–8, 143 ladders 296, 302–7, 313 meaning system 292–317 Miranda’s lying example 293, 295, 297–301 nonproductive coping styles 291, 305–13 parents 287–8, 289–91, 293, 297–313 pause periods in therapy 292 PCP 120–1, 129, 132–43, 287–317 peer groups 289–317 personal description method 296, 301–2, 304–7, 313 problem-solving coping styles 291, 306–13 Ralph’s example 293, 295, 307–9 rapport needs 292–3 referrals 292–4 relaxation/meditation/imagery/ stories 291, 306–7, 310–13 repertory grids 19 research on coping 290–1 risk-taking experiences 129, 132–43 role models 306–7 role relationships 292–4, 312–13 self concepts 289–317 self-characterizations 120–1 self-defeating cycles 307–8 self-focus tendencies 291 strength cards 296, 309–10, 313 support-of-others coping styles 291 tasks 289–90 therapist aims/orientations 292–4

therapy processes 294–317 time-limited interventions 293 transitive diagnoses 290 transparency issues 292–3 ‘Who Are You’ structured interviews 296–301, 309–10, 313 advantages of remaining the same, ABC model 93–106, 133–4 aesthetics 200–19 affinity/isolation subscale of CASPM 227–38 aged care settings, institutional care and respecting dignity ABC example 103–4 aggression 117–18 see also hostility agoraphobia 95–6, 254 alcohol 134–6, 291 alternative stories adolescents 295–317 constructive alternativism 4, 190, 297–301 amygdala 248–9 Amy’s example, adolescents 293, 309–10 Analyse computer program 223, 236–9 analyses 7–8, 112–27, 156–7, 159–81, 206–19, 223, 236–9, 271, 274–84 drawings/pictures 274–84 grids 7–8, 156–7, 159–81, 206–19 repertory grids 7–8, 157, 159–81, 206–19 self-characterizations 112–27, 271, 277–84 analysis of contextual areas invoked by the protocol, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 116, 271 anchors, construct revision pathway 262–5 anger 101–2, 117–18 see also hostility

Index anorexia nervosa 11, 19, 74, 170–2, 300 ladders 74 repertory grids 19 anticipation 5–44, 90–106, 117, 129–43, 183–219, 257–65, 270–84, 294–317 see also Experience Cycle Methodology; imagination; predictions; preparations; templets channelized psychological processes 117, 186–7, 270–1 concepts 5, 90, 117, 185–219, 259–65, 295–317 definition 192 phase of the ECM 133–43, 258–65, 294–5, 315–16 validations 259–65, 295–317 anxiety 101–2, 223, 227–8, 229–39, 259–60, 274–84, 295–317 area analysis, Kelly’s approach to selfcharacterization analysis 116–17, 275 art cards 272 art objects repertory grids 206–7 templets 199–201, 203–19 articulation measures 160–1 artificial intelligence 190, 202–3 ‘as if ’ stance benefits, adolescents 295 Ashkar, Chantel 109–28 assertiveness 97–8 assessments 3, 5–44, 71–85, 91–106, 109–27, 149–57, 159–81, 247–65, 287–317 see also ABC model; implication grids; ladders; repertory grids; resistance-to-change grids; selfcharacterizations adolescents 120–1, 129, 132–43, 287–317

321

comparisons of methods 41–4, 91 concepts 3, 5–44, 91, 247–65, 269–84, 294–5 drawings/pictures 269–84, 294 future research 43–4 narrative assessments 247–65 overview of methods 5–6, 91, 294–5 assimilation of schema 202, 249 assumptions 53–65, 78–9, 188–219, 224–39, 250–3 Atkinson, Elaine 287–317 attachment theory 289 attributes 170–2, 194–219, 258–65 construct networks 194–219 formal concept analysis 170–2 audit trails, qualitative research 63–5 Australia 129, 132–43, 232, 234–9, 287–313 authenticity criteria 64 see also credibility . . .; qualitative research autonomous individuals, implication grids 26 autonomy/constraint subscale of CASPM 227–38 autonomy/shame bipolar concepts, adolescents 289 avoidance behaviours 291, 295 awareness 31–2, 93–106, 288–317 awareness-raising processes, adolescents 291–317 Bakhtin, Mikhail 251, 263 behaviourist categorizations 113 behaviours 113, 248–9, 270–84, 296–301 being human, meaning system 250–3 ‘being really there’, laddering examples 81–2 beliefs 56–65, 72–85, 293–317

322

Index

Bell, Richard 150, 154, 155, 156, 159–81 binary repertory grids 152–4, 173–5 biogenetic level, narratives 248–9 bipolar constructs 4–44, 71–85, 89–106, 112–27, 149–57, 194–219, 272–84, 289–90, 296–317 see also choices; ladders; poles; repertory grids adolescents 289, 290, 296–317 concepts 4–5, 25–30, 71–85, 194–219, 272–84 contrasting drawings/ pictures 272–3 definition 4–5, 25–6 ‘dichotomous differentiating and integrating’ units 149–50, 270–1, 272–84 bipolar ego developmental tasks 227, 312–13 bipolar impgrids 25–30, 91, 172–3 see also implication grids blocks ladders 80–5 narratives 256–65 Botella, Luis 247–67 Brahm, Ajahn 312 the brain, narratives 248–9 brainstorming 316 brands 77–8 Buber, Martin 102 Buddhist tales, stories 312 ‘but not’ possibilities, art objects 201 C-P-C Cycle see Circumspection– Preemption–Control Cycle Caputi, Peter 29–30, 149–58, 159–81, 223–43 CASPM see content analysis scales of psychosocial maturity categorizations 112–13, 150–7, 194–219

see also hierarchical . . .; knowledge; repertory grids Kelly’s approach to selfcharacterization analysis 112–13 cause-and-effect constructs 116–17, 256–7, 289 adolescents 289 Kelly’s approach to selfcharacterization analysis 116–17 central core values 5, 6, 24–34, 35–7, 42–4, 71–85, 92–106, 119–27, 259–65, 274–84, 296–301, 302–7 see also core constructs; ladders; values changes 5, 6, 28, 32, 35–7, 42–4, 73, 91, 155–6, 252, 256–65 see also resistance-to-change grids narratives 251–2, 256–65 channelized psychological processes, Kelly’s approach to selfcharacterization analysis 117, 186–7, 270–1 character sketches 109–27 see also self-characterizations definition 111 children 19, 26, 27, 39, 42, 121, 232, 234–5, 271, 272–3, 287–317 see also adolescents developmental stages 288–90, 312–13 drawings/pictures 271, 272–3, 294, 296, 307–9, 313 implication grids 26, 27 repertory grids 19 self-characterizations 40, 121, 271 China 232, 235, 236 ‘Choice Corollary’ 90, 189–90 choices 89–91, 133–43, 189–219 see also ABC model; decisions; poles Circumspection–Preemption–Control Cycle (C-P-C Cycle) 99, 117–18, 280–1, 294–5, 317

Index class concepts 204–5, 228–36 Classification System for Personal Constructs (CSPC) 33, 40, 157 clauses, content analysis scales 224–39 clients 5–44, 55–65, 90–106, 109–27, 129–43, 224–5, 247–65, 269–85, 287–317 see also adolescents; children credulous approaches by practitioners 110, 113, 301–2 identification processes with the client 118–19 involvement benefits 118–19, 142–3 psychotherapy reasons 256–7, 289–90, 291 role relationships 109–11, 117–18, 224–5, 269–70, 292–4, 312–13 Clinton, President 78 cluster analysis 160–1, 162, 165–8, 170, 184–5, 207–19 see also dendograms cluster concepts, art objects 200–1 co-authoring others, narratives 249–50 cognitive anxiety content analysis scales 223, 227–8, 229–39 see also negative tone . . . definition 227–8 reliability of measures 229–30 validity of measures 233–6 cognitive complexity measures 9–24, 159–81 cognitive complexity repertory grid measure 9–24, 159–81 definition 9 reliability of measures 13–18 validity of measures 18–19, 20–4 cognitive complexity-simplicity index 159, 168–9 cognitive equilibration 202 cognitive psychology 202, 248–65, 296–301

323

cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) 94 coherence criteria 65, 248, 250, 253–65 see also dependability . . .; qualitative research coherence therapy 90–1, 253–65 collaborative dialogues to transform the narratives of identity, psychotherapy 252–3, 257–65 collation of terms, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 114–15, 271 collective aspects of construct networks 203–19, 253 collective vulnerability 102–3 ‘coming out’ example, ECM 138–40, 143 commitments 6, 19, 35–7, 315–16 see also resistance-to-change grids communications 127, 188–9, 217–19, 223–39 see also drawings . . .; images; verbal . . .; written . . . adolescents 291–317 community of self 121–2, 189–90 see also many selves . . . compelling personal meanings 92–106 see also ABC model complete partial order, definition 170–2 complete-linkage clustering 162, 166–8 complexity of the narrative content 254–5 computer-aided constructivism 7, 10, 11, 24, 29, 36–7, 40, 77, 162–5, 166, 170–2, 183–219, 223, 236–9 Analyse computer program 223, 236–9 artificial intelligence 190

324

Index

computer-aided constructivism (Continued ) cluster analysis 162, 166, 184–5, 207–19 concepts 183–219 critique 185, 190, 191, 217–19 ELIZA computer program 184 expert systems 184–5 FOCUS computer program 184–5, 207–19 historical background 183–5 implication grids 29 INGRID computer program 162–3, 184–5, 211–19 Internet 184–5 Kelly’s views 183–5 ladders 77 limitations 185, 190, 191 methodological principles 187–91 multiple grids 213–19 neurotic clients 184–5 PEGASUS computer program 184 principal component analysis 162–3, 184–5, 211–19 PrinGrid computer program 214–16 psychological space 211–19 Rep 5 computer program 196–8, 219 repertory grids 7, 10, 11, 24, 29, 162–5, 170–2, 184–219 resistance-to-change grids 36–7 self-characterizations 40 semantic networks 183–4, 202–19 SocioGrids computer program 216–17 templets 191–219 usage examples 191–219 uses 183–5, 212–13, 217–19 WebGrid computer program 7, 209–11, 219

concentration/focus needs, laddering techniques 85 conceptual grids 201–19 see also cybernetic models; grids definition 201–2 CONEXP program 171–2 conferences ecological aspects 102 restorative justice and dehumanization ABC example 101–3 confirmability audits, qualitative research 64–5 confirmability criteria 53, 64–5, 142 see also permeability . . .; qualitative research concepts 64, 142 critique 64–5 definition 64 confirmation/disconfirmation phase of the ECM 133–43, 258–65, 294–5, 315–16 conflict measures 159–81 conflict resolution 127 conflict symptoms 90–1 connotations of complex templates 199–202 consistency of interpretations 63, 229–30 see also dependability . . . constricted construing 274–84 construct networks 183–219 see also relationships; templets aspects 203–19 complex templet structures 198–203 logical structure 191–8 construct revision pathway 129, 133–43, 258–65, 283, 294–5, 315–16 see also Experience Cycle Methodology

Index definition 133, 140–1, 143 harbours and anchors 262–5 construct similarity repertory grid measure 15, 16–24 construct system differentiation, repertory grid measures 9–24, 149–57 construct systems 4–5, 9–24, 71–2, 90–106, 109–27, 130–2, 149–57, 159–81, 186–219, 257–65, 269–84, 295–317 see also anticipation; personal construct theory; relationships; templets definition 4–5, 71–2, 191–2, 193–4, 272–3 finite number of constructs 152 narratives 257–65 construct-construct grids see also implication grids; resistanceto-change grids definition 154–5 constructive alternativism 4, 190, 297–301 constructive revision phase of the ECM 133–43, 258–65, 294–5, 315–16 constructivist assessments 3, 5–44 see also assessments; repertory grids concepts 3, 5–6 constructivist techniques computer-aided constructivism 183–219 features 3–44, 185–7 functions 3–44 construing 19, 117–18, 130–43, 250–3, 270–84, 292–317 see also constricted . . .; core . . .; dilated . . .; interpretations; loose . . .; meaning . . .; peripheral . . .; tight . . . adolescents 292–317 definition 186–7, 270–1, 272, 274

325

drawings/pictures 270–84 consumers 75–8 content analysis, concepts 32–4, 77–8, 223–39 content analysis scales 223–39 advantages 224–5 Analyse computer program 223, 236–9 clauses 224–39 cognitive anxiety scale 223, 227–8, 229–39 concepts 223–39 critique 236, 239 cues 224–39 cultural issues 236 definition 223–5 limitations 236 origin scales 223, 226, 229–39 pawn scales 223, 227, 229–39 positive affect scales 223, 226, 229–39 reliability of measures 224, 228–36 sociality scales 223, 226, 229–39 steps 224 translation issues 236 validity of measures 224, 228–36 content analysis scales of psychosocial maturity (CASPM) 223, 226–7, 229–39 see also positive and negative tones . . . definition 226–7 reliability of measures 229–30 validity of measures 232–6 continuously revised personal theories 4–44, 185–7 contrast relations, templets 192–219 contrasting drawings/pictures 269–84 see also drawings/pictures contributing, laddering examples 81–2 convergent validity of implication grids 28–9

326

Index

conversations 251–3, 256–65 see also language coping 231, 289–317 adolescents 289–91, 303–13 guided imagery 310–13 improvement methods 310–13 meditation techniques 310–13 relaxation activities 291, 306–7, 310–13 styles 291, 305–7, 310–13 core commitments 6, 19, 35–7 see also resistance-to-change grids core constructs 5, 6, 24–34, 35–7, 42–4, 71–85, 92–106, 119–27, 259–65, 274–84, 296–301, 302–7 see also central core values; ladders implication grids 24–30 resistance-to-change grids 5, 6, 28, 32, 35–7, 42–4 correlations 160–81, 228–39 cortex 249 counselling methods 247–65, 269–84, 287–317 countertransference 294 crayon pictures 284 see also drawings . . . creative imagination 192–219, 315–16 see also anticipation; templets Creativity Cycle 117–18, 294, 316 credibility criteria 53, 56–61, 64–5, 142 see also authenticity . . .; internal validity; qualitative research; validity . . . concepts 56–61, 65, 142 critique 57–8, 64–5 definition 56–8, 65 improvement methods 58–61 testing emerging theories against the data 58, 60–1 triangulation improvement methods 58–61

credulous approaches by practitioners 110, 113, 301–2 crises events 27 Crittenden, Nadia 71–87, 109–28, 302 crossplots, psychological space 212–13 CSPC see Classification System for Personal Constructs cues, content analysis scales 224–39 cultural issues 104, 190–1, 236, 248–50, 289 cultural-linguistic level, narratives 249–50 cybernetic models 203, 207–19 see also conceptual grids; ultrastable systems Dana’s unprotected sex example, ECM 134–6, 143 dance in therapy 271 death and dying, ladders 32 Debbie’s narrative 254 decisions 99–106, 117–18, 133–43, 189–219, 280–1, 294–5, 317 see also ABC model; choices; poles C-P-C Cycle 99, 117–18, 280–1, 294–5, 317 dehumanization example, ABC model 101–3 delinquent clients implication grids 26 repertory grids 19 dendograms 166–8 see also cluster analysis dependability criteria 53, 63, 64–5, 142 see also coherence . . .; qualitative research; reliability . . . concepts 63, 142 critique 64–5 definition 63 Dependency Grids, definition 154–5

Index depression 11–18, 19, 32, 92, 93–4, 96, 98, 99–100, 101–2, 112, 113–15, 124, 155, 233, 253, 259–65, 271, 295, 303–7, 309–13 ABC model 92, 93–4, 96, 98, 99–100, 101–2 implication grids 26 ladders 32 repertory grids 19 depth-oriented brief therapy see coherence therapy desired positions 92–106, 132–43, 247–8 ABC model 92–106, 132–43 developmental stages, children 288–90, 312–13 Dewey’s influences 185–7 diagnoses 269–84 see also assessments drawings/pictures 269–70, 274–84 dialogues collaborative dialogues to transform the narratives of identity 252–3, 257–65 drawings/pictures 273 diary methodology, ECM 129, 142–3 ‘dichotomous differentiating and integrating’ units 149–50, 205–19, 270–1, 272–84 definition 149–50 differentiation concepts 9–24, 149–57, 187–219, 270–84 ‘dichotomous differentiating and integrating’ units 149–50, 270–1, 272–84 templets 191–219 dilated construing 274–84 dilemmas 90–106, 169 see also ABC model symptoms 90–1

327

dimensional analysis, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 117, 271 disadvantages of changing, ABC model 93–106, 133–4 discriminant validity of repertory grids 20–2, 149–57 disturbing emotions, ladders 84–5 doctors, managers 36 drawings/pictures 269–84, 294, 296, 307–9, 311, 313 see also contrasting drawings/pictures adolescents 294, 296, 307–9, 313 analyses 274–84 bipolar constructs 272–3 children 271, 272–3, 294, 296, 307–9, 313 clinical applications 269–84, 296, 307–9, 313 concepts 269–84, 294, 296, 307–9, 313 construing 270–84 critique 270, 283–4 diagnoses 269–70, 274–84 elaborations 274–84 emotion symbols 281 examples 271, 272–3, 274–84, 307–9 Imogen’s drawing 275–6, 277, 281–2 integrated opposites/choices into one picture 282–3 issues to be considered 274 Joanne’s drawing 278–9, 282 Liane’s drawing 280–1, 282 limitations 270 Margo’s drawing 279–80, 282–3 Maria’s drawing 277, 283 menopause group workshop 275–84 older adults 271, 273 practitioners’ reports 270–1

328

Index

drawings/pictures (Continued ) presence/absence of the self 278–81 relative size of the self 280–1 relative size/placement of the contrasting pictures 281–2 scope of the picture 275–6 the self 271–84 strength of the lines 282 transitive diagnoses 269–70, 274–84 treatments 294, 296, 307–9, 313 uses 269–84, 296, 307–9, 313 drug dependencies 92, 93, 136–8, 234, 291 drunk-driver case, ABC model 101–3 Duchamp’s readymade art items 204–7 dyadic procedures 151–2 dyadic-relational level, narratives 249 ECM see Experience Cycle Methodology ecological aspects conferences 102 construct networks 203–19 elaborations drawing/pictures 274–84 self-characterizations 120–7, 277–84 element placement, repertory grid measures 10–24, 150–7 element-construct grids see also Dependency Grids; repertory grids definition 154–5 element-element grids, definition 154–5 elements 6–24, 124–7, 149–57, 159–81, 205–19, 272–84 see also events; experiences; objects; people; repertory grids definition 6–7, 150–1 fixed/samples elements 150–1

elicitation 111, 119, 151–7, 206–19, 272–84, 296–317 see also response formats drawings/pictures 272–84 elite bias 62 ELIZA computer program 184 embedded aspects of construct networks 203–19 emotions 7–44, 82–4, 97–8, 101–3, 157, 187, 224–5, 248–65, 276–84, 291, 293–317 drawings/pictures 276–84 laddering blocks 82–4 empathic walls 102 empathy 85, 102, 293–4 empirical analysis 53–6, 64–5, 129, 140–1, 185–7 see also positivism emplotment concepts, narratives 258–65 empty chair technique, definition 95 enactment sketches 39 see also fixed-role therapy encounter phase of the ECM 133–43, 258–65, 294–5, 315–16 entailment relations lexical entailments 205 templets 192–219 epigenetics, narratives 248 epistemological assumptions underlying research 53–65, 78–9, 188–9 Erika’s trauma example, adolescents 289, 293, 295, 303–7 Erikson’s bipolar ego developmental tasks 227, 287–312 ethics 288 Euclidean distances 166–8 see also cluster analysis evaluations 5–44, 142, 253–65 see also assessments

Index events 4–44, 149–57, 159–81, 205–19, 250–65, 296–317 see also elements; experience . . .; repertory grids concepts 4–5, 6–24 evolution 185–7, 203 exchange grids 213–19 existential questions 247–65 Experience Cycle Methodology (ECM) 129–46, 257–65, 294–5, 315–17 see also construct revision pathway; personal construct theory ABC model 132–43 adolescents 129, 132–43 Australian adolescents 129, 132–43 concepts 129–43, 257–65, 315–16 critique 137–8, 142–3 Dana’s unprotected sex example 134–6, 143 definition 129–34, 257–8 description 132–4 diary methodology 129, 142–3 examples 129, 132–43, 257–65 further directions 129, 141–3 improvement recommendations 142–3 Jade’s ‘coming out’ example 138–40, 143 Jono’s intravenous drug use example 136–8, 143 limitations 137–8, 142–3 phases 130, 132–4, 258–65, 315–16 principles 129, 130–2, 257–65 quantitative uses 129, 130, 132, 140–3 scientist analogy 129–30, 257–8 experiences 4–44, 55–65, 96, 129–43, 183–219, 225–39, 250–65, 294–317 see also elements

329

concepts 4–5, 6–24, 129–43, 185–219, 250–3, 294–317 emplotment concepts 258–65 reconstructed experiences 256–65, 284, 294–317 representations 203–5 shared experiences 189–219, 250–3 templets 191–219 thematization concepts 258–65 validations 259–65, 295–317 experiential shifts 96 experiments 116, 126–7, 130–43, 259–65, 295–317 see also Experience Cycle Methodology; new constructs expert systems 184–5 see also computer . . . explorations 125–6 external validity 61–2 see also transferability . . . extraversion 97–8, 247–8 extremity of ratings repertory grid measure 10–24 definition 10 reliability of measures 15–18 validity of measures 21–4 faceted taxonomy, definition 201–2 facilitators, ABC model 101–5 factor analysis 159–81 ‘family characterization sketch’, selfcharacterizations 120–1, 126–7 family therapy 11, 120–1, 126–7 feedback 18, 142–3 fights, adolescents 307–9 figure similarity repertory grid measure 14, 16–24 first reactions to protocol, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 112–13

330

Index

fixed-role therapy 39, 98, 126–7 see also new constructs; selfcharacterizations applications 98, 126–7 definition 39 post-treatment assessments 98 fixed/samples elements, definition 150–1 FOCUS computer program 184–5, 207–19 focusing techniques, adolescents 311–12 formal concept analysis 170–2 see also hierarchical classes analysis Fortran 162 Foster, Heather 269–85 Fragmentation Corollary 124, 273–4, 289–90 Framenet 202 frames 202, 250–3, 257–65 see also knowledge; semantic networks definition 202 Fraser, Anne 287–317 Freud, Sigmund 90 functionally independent construction (FIC) repertory grid measure 9–24, 160–1 definition 9 reliability of measures 13–18 validity of measures 18–19 future research see also research applications personal construct theory 43–4 future-orientation of living systems 185–7 Gaines, Brian R. 183–222 Gamiz, Marıa 247–67 generativity/stagnation subscale of CASPM 227–38 geometry 149–52, 184–5, 211–19

goal achievements, coping styles 291, 306–7 God 255–6, 259, 262, 289 ‘going native’ researchers 58 see also credibility criteria good–bad dichotomy 19 graphical representations, ladders 77–8 Green, Bob 219 Gridcor computer program 7, 10 grids 6–30, 36–7, 40, 77, 95–6, 124–7, 149–57, 159–81, 183–219 see also implication . . .; repertory . . .; resistance-to-change . . . analyses 7–8, 156–7, 159–81, 206–19 cluster analysis 160–1, 162, 165–8, 184–5, 207–19 computer-aided constructivism 7, 10, 11, 24, 29, 36–7, 40, 77, 162–5, 170–2, 183–219 concepts 6–30, 149–57, 159–81, 201–19 formal concept analysis 170–2 hierarchical classes analysis 170–5, 207–19 hierarchical modeling approach 170, 172–6, 207–19 introduction 149–57 many selves self-characterization elaboration concept 124–7 methods 149–57, 206–19 multiple grids 26–30, 156, 213–19 new analysis approaches 159, 168–76 new configuration approaches to analysis 159, 169–76 newer indices 168–9 overview 6, 149–57 principal component analysis 162–5, 168–9, 184–5, 211–19

Index summary indices 159–81 traditional analysis approaches 159–81 types 6, 149–57 grief and loss, narratives 254, 258–65 group minds 190 group therapy 96–7, 273, 274–84 group workshops 274–84 guided imagery, coping styles 310–13 guilt 117–18, 259–60, 289 hair, laddering examples 80 happiness, grid analysis 163–76, 179–81 harbours and anchors, construct revision pathway 262–5 ‘hard’ laddering 76–8, 80 see also ladders Hardison, Heather Gaines 3–51 Hasse diagrams 173, 175 Heisenberg uncertainty principle 218 Hemsley, Alison 143 Hennessy, Desley 156, 159–81 heroin 136–8 hierarchical classes analysis 170–5, 207–19 see also formal concept analysis hierarchical modeling approach 170, 172–6, 194–219, 259–65, 302–7 concepts 170, 172–6, 207–19 definition 170, 172–3 hierarchical system of personal constructs 4–44, 170, 172–6, 194–219, 259–65, 302–7 hippocampus 249 holiday resorts, repertory grids 209–10 holistic fallacy 57 homework 31–2 homosexuality, ‘coming out’ ECM example 138–40, 143 hostility 101–2, 117–18

331

see also aggression; anger household furnishing repertory grids 207–9 templets 207–9 ‘how does that make you feel’ questions, ladders 82–4 ‘how’ questions ladders 74–85 pyramiding technique 74 Hull’s influences 187 hypochondriacal behaviours 302–3 I–it relations 102 I–Thou relations 101–2 ideal art objects 200–1 ideals, self-ideal discrepancy repertory grid measure 10–24, 120–1, 169, 171–2 identification processes with the client, self-characterizations 118–19 identity 5–44, 227–39, 247–65, 289–317 adolescents 289–317 collaborative dialogues to transform the narratives of identity 252–3, 257–65 concepts 247–65 narratives 247–65 psychological problems 252–3 identity role confusions, adolescents 289–317 identity subscale of CASPM 227–38 idiographic approach to PCT 5–6, 21–4, 37–44, 130, 132–43, 188–9, 204–5 image 116, 161, 179–81 imagery, coping styles 310–13 images 269–84, 294, 311–12 see also drawings . . . types 271–2, 284 imagination 192–219, 311–13 see also anticipation; templets

332

Index

Imogen’s drawing 275–6, 277, 281–2 impasses 6, 35–7, 39, 91, 308–9 see also resistance-to-change grids impgrids see implication grids implication grids 5, 6, 24–30, 42–4, 77–8, 91, 154–7, 172–6 see also assessments; constructconstruct . . .; multiple . . .; relationships; self . . . advantages 29 applications 25–6, 29–30, 77–8, 91, 172–6 autonomous individuals 26 bipolar impgrids 25–30, 91, 172–3 comparisons with other methods 27–8, 29, 42–4 computer program shortfalls 29 concepts 5, 6, 24–30, 42–4, 77–8, 91, 154–7, 172–6 convergent validity 28–9 creation methods 24–5 critique 29–30, 42–3, 44 definition 6, 24–5, 42–3, 91, 154–7 examples 25–8 grid matrices 24–30 hierarchical modeling approach 172–6 limitations 29–30, 42–3 reliability of measures 26–8, 29–30 repertory grids 27–8, 29, 42–4, 172–6 resistance-to-change grids 28 validity of measures 27–30, 42–4 variations 25–6 implicit learning, narratives 248–9 implied constructs 4–44, 302–7 impulsive behaviours 295 incompatibility relations, templets 192–219 indecent exposure 96

individuals see people industry/inferiority bipolar concepts, adolescents 289, 290 industry/inferiority subscale of CASPM 227–38 inferences, construct networks 196–219 inferiority 227–38, 289 influence relationships, content analysis scales 226–39 INGRID computer program 162–3, 184–5, 211–19 initiative/guilt bipolar concepts, adolescents 289 initiative/hesitancy subscale of CASPM 227–38 initiator relationships, content analysis scales 226–39 institutional care and respecting dignity ABC example 103–4 instrumental values see also values definition 76–7 integrated assessment/treatment model for adolescents 287–317 integration, ‘dichotomous differentiating and integrating’ units 149–50, 270–1, 272–84 integration measures 160–1, 295–317 integrity/despair subscale of CASPM 227–38 intelligibility dimensions narratives 255–65 psychotherapy 257–65 intensity measures 9–24, 27–8, 160–1 intensity repertory grid measure 9–24, 27–8, 160–1 definition 9 reliability of measures 11–18 validity of measures 19, 20–4 interdependencies between researchers/ participants 55–65, 225

Index internal and construct validity of repertory grids 19–21 internal validity 19–21, 56–7 see also credibility . . . Internet 184–5 interpretations 4–44, 54–65, 109–27, 186–219, 225, 250–3, 270–84 see also construing; meaning system language 250–3 intersection techniques 308–9 intervention techniques, PCP for adolescents 288, 294–317 interviews 6–24, 59–65, 71–85, 129, 131–43, 225–39, 294–5, 296–301, 302–7, 313 see also ladders; qualitative research; semi-structured . . .; structured . . . intimacy relationships, content analysis scales 226–39 intravenous drug use example, ECM 136–8, 143 introverts 247–8 investment phase of the ECM 133–43, 258–65, 294–5, 315–16 irrelevance, templets 196–219 irreparable failures, narratives 253 islands of civility, wartorn societies 105 Jade’s ‘coming out’ example, ECM 138–40, 143 Joanne’s drawing 278–9, 282 Jono’s intravenous drug use example, ECM 136–8, 143 Kaldor, Mary 105 keeping fit, coping styles 291 Kelly, George 3–19, 37–8, 53–4, 64–5, 71, 74, 89–90, 92–4, 99, 101, 109–27, 129–43, 149–56, 159, 170, 183–219, 227–8, 248, 256–7, 269–84, 287–90, 292–5, 297, 302, 312, 315–17

knowledge acquisition uses of ladders 78–9 hierarchies 194–219

333

75–6,

ladders 5, 6, 30–4, 35, 40, 42–4, 71–85, 95–6, 119, 124, 151, 296, 302–7, 313 see also assessments; central core values; poles adolescents 296, 302–7, 313 advantages 33–4, 72–85 applications 31–2, 43, 71–85, 95–6, 119, 124, 151, 296, 302–7, 313 assumptions 34 blocks 80–5 clinical applications 31–2, 71, 73–4, 296, 302–7, 313 comparisons with other methods 42–4 complexity problems 32–4, 72–85 computer programs 77 concentration/focus needs 85 concepts 6, 30–4, 40, 42–4, 71–85, 95–6, 119, 124, 151, 296, 302–7, 313 creation methods 30–1, 71–85, 303–7 critique 32–4, 72, 79–85 definition 6, 30–1, 71–3, 77, 84–5, 302–7 development of laddering 73–4, 303–7 disturbing emotions 84–5 emotions and blocks 82–4 Erika’s trauma example 303–7 examples 30–1, 32–3, 72–85, 119, 124, 302–7 guidelines for new users 34, 71–85 ‘hard’/‘soft’ laddering 76–8, 80 ‘how does that make you feel’ questions 82–4

334

Index

ladders (Continued ) knowledge acquisition uses 75–6, 78–9 learning methods 71, 79–85, 303 lengths 72–3 limitations 32–3, 34, 43, 72, 79–85 marketing uses 75–8 means-end chains 76–7 negative feelings 83–4 PCP 296, 302–7, 313 philosophy 72–3 popularity 32, 34 practical learning methods 79–85 precautions 34 psychometrics 32–3 pyramiding technique 73–4 reliability of measures 34 research applications 31–2, 71, 85 several pathways 81–2 solutions to laddering problems 79–85 styles 72–3 top of the ladder 83–5 treatments 296, 302–7, 313 validity of measures 32–3, 43, 74–5 ‘why’ questions 72–4, 80–5, 302–7 wider uses 75–9 language 185–6, 202–19, 249, 250–65 see also conversations concepts 250–3, 256–7 interpretations 250–3 narratives 249, 250–3, 256–7 transvaluations 263–5 laziness, grid analysis 163–76, 179–81 learning 11, 71, 79–85, 105, 187–219 disabilities 11 repertory grids 210–19 left hemispheric language skills 249 leisure activities 278–80 lengths, ladders 72–3 ‘Letters from Jenny’ textual grid method, self-characterizations 119

levels of cognitive awareness 93–106 lexical entailments, templets 205 Liane’s drawing 280–1, 282 lies, Miranda’s lying example 293, 295, 297–301 life stories, narratives 248–65, 308–9 Likert-type scales 171–2 limbic system 249 locus of control 259–62, 280–1 logic boundaries, psychology 190 logical relations between templets 192–5 logical structure of construct networks 191–8 longitudinal studies 62 loose construing 117–18, 274–84, 295–317 man, theory of man 3, 185–7 managers, doctors 36 many selves elaboration concept, selfcharacterizations 121–7 MAP see minimum average partial correlation test Margo’s drawing 279–80, 282–3 Maria’s drawing 277, 283 marital therapy 11, 32, 39 market research 151, 217 marketing ladders 75–8 repertory grids 151, 217 masks 114 mathematics 149–50, 170–2 meaning system 3–44, 53–65, 72–85, 92–106, 115–27, 131–43, 151–7, 185–219, 225, 248–65, 270–84, 292–317 see also construing; interpretations; semantic networks adolescents 292–317 being human 250–3

Index collaborative dialogues to transform the narratives of identity 252–3, 257–65 means 157, 162–8 means-end chains 76–7 see also ladders measures 11–24, 26–30, 32–3, 34, 36–7, 40, 42–4, 56, 61–2, 63, 64, 74–5, 141–2, 224, 228–36 see also reliability . . .; validity . . . repertory grids 7–24, 159–81 summary indices 159–81 medial temporal lobe 249 meditation techniques, coping styles 310–13 memory 99–100, 201–2, 248–65 see also schema concepts 248–50 narratives 248–9 menopause 275–84 meta-analyses 118, 198 meta-cognition 42–3, 198 see also implication grids; resistanceto-change grids meta-values, conceptual networks 198, 207–19 metaphors 263–5, 272–3, 281, 311 see also symbols mind notions 186–7, 190–219 mindfulness 263–5 minimalist approach of Kelly 187–9 minimum average partial correlation test (MAP) 168–9 Miranda’s lying example, adolescents 293, 295, 297–301 missed therapy sessions 37 monadic procedures 151–2 moral areas 33, 157 motivations 203–19, 300–1 multidimensional ‘terrain’, repertory grids 152–7 multiple grids 26–30, 156, 213–19

335

multiple implication grids 26–30, 156 see also implication grids music in therapy 271, 311 Nagy, Sue 53–68 narrative construction of identity 247–65 ‘narrative transcendence’ 257–65 narratives 6, 37–44, 109–27, 132–43, 247–65, 308–9 see also Experience Cycle Methodology; narratives; selfcharacterizations biogenetic level 248–9 blocks 256–65 the brain 248–9 case examples 257–65 changes 251–2, 256–65 co-authoring others 249–50 collaborative dialogues to transform the narratives of identity 252–3, 257–65 complexity of the content 254–5 construct systems 257–65 cultural-linguistic level 249–50 Debbie’s narrative 254 definition 248–9, 253, 256 dyadic-relational level 249 ECM 257–65 emplotment concepts 258–65 epigenetics 248 examples 257–65 grief and loss 254, 258–65 identity 247–65 intelligibility dimensions 255–65 irreparable failures 253 life stories 248–65, 308–9 memory 248–9 metaphors 263–5 Mike’s narrative 255–6 objectivist assumptions 253, 255 performative aspects 256–7

336

Index

narratives (Continued ) personal-agentic level 249 poems 258–65 processes 255 psychological problems 252–3 reconstructed experiences 256–65 relational constructivism 250–3 Rose’s narrative 254 selected dimensions in psychotherapy 253–65 social performances of the life scripts 249 structure and coherence 253–65 subjectivist assumptions 253, 255 thematization concepts 258–65 transformation needs 257–65 transvaluations 263–5 trapped ‘dominant narratives’ 256–7 Trevor’s narrative 255 validations 259–65, 289–90 voices 251–2 ‘nature babbling to herself ’ listening 113 negative feelings 83–4, 259–60 negative and positive implications, poles 93–106, 120–1, 125–7, 132–43 negative self-construing repgrid evidence, depression 19 negative tone content analysis scales 226–39 see also cognitive anxiety . . .; pawn . . . Neimeyer, Robert A. 3–51, 101–3, 233, 248, 257, 312 neurotic clients 19, 90–1, 184–5 computer programs 184–5 repertory grids 19 neurotic paradox 90–1 new constructs 11, 25–6, 39, 116–17, 126–7, 256–7, 262–5, 272–84, 295–317

see also experiments; fixed-role therapy new harbours and anchors, construct revision pathway 262–5 next time phase of the ECM 133–43, 258–65 nonproductive coping styles, adolescents 291, 305–13 not-yet-said narratives 252–3 numbers 54–65 see also quantitative analyses numerical data 54 see also quantitative data Oades, Lindsay G. 129–46 objectivist assumptions, narratives 253, 255 objectivity claims 64 see also confirmability . . .; quantitative research objects 6–44, 149–57, 159–81 see also elements; repertory grids formal concept analysis 170–2 observation of organization, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 114, 271 observation of sequence and transition, Kelly’s approach to selfcharacterization analysis 113–14, 271 observations 59, 113–14, 218, 271, 305–7 see also qualitative research older adults, drawings/pictures 271, 273 Omnigrid computer program 7 ontological assumptions underlying research 53–65, 188–9 open concepts art objects 199–201 verbal data 225

Index Opening the Door of Your Heart – and Other Buddhist Tales of Happiness (Brahm) 312 optimal functioning 302, 313, 315 optimism 287–317 orbito-frontal cortex 249 ordination repertory grid measure 10–24, 159–81 definition 10 reliability of measures 13–18 validity of measures 18–19, 21–4 Organization Corollary 155, 170, 205–6 orgasms 92 orientation 253–65 origin content analysis scales 223, 226, 229–39 see also positive tone . . . definition 226 reliability of measures 229–30 validity of measures 231–6 outcasts 250–1 outside-to-inside approach, selfcharacterizations 39–41 overview of personal construct theory 3–5 panic attacks 295 paranoiac patients 184, 302–3 paraphrasing uses, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 115–16 parents 287–8, 289–91, 293, 297–313 see also adolescents; children pause periods in therapy, adolescents 292 pawn content analysis scales 223, 227, 229–39 see also negative tone . . . definition 227 reliability of measures 229–30 validity of measures 233–6

337

PCP see personal construct psychotherapy PCT see personal construct theory Pearson correlations 9, 16 peer groups, adolescents 289–317 PEGASUS computer program 184 people 5–44, 55–65, 78–85, 90–106, 109–27, 129–43, 149–57, 159–81, 205–19, 224–5, 247–65, 269–85 see also clients; elements; practitioners; repertory grids performative aspects of selfnarratives 256–7 peripheral construing 273–84, 296–307 permeability of constructs 117–18 permeability criteria 65 see also confirmability . . .; qualitative research personal computers 184–5 personal construct paradigm 55–65 personal construct psychotherapy (PCP) 11, 97–8, 231–6, 287–317 see also psychotherapy; treatments adolescents 120–1, 129, 132–43, 287–317 awareness-raising processes 291–317 drawings/pictures 269–84, 294, 296, 307–9, 313 intervention techniques 288, 294–317 ladders 296, 302–7, 313 methods 294–317 personal description method 296, 301–2, 304–7, 313 philosophical and theoretical framework 287–94, 312–13 processes 294–317 relaxation/meditation/imagery/ stories 291, 306–7, 310–13 strength cards 296, 309–10, 313

338

Index

personal construct psychotherapy (Continued ) ‘Who Are You’ structured interviews 296–301, 309–10, 313 personal construct theory (PCT) 3–44, 55–65, 71–85, 89–106, 130–2, 149–50, 170–2, 183–219, 247–65, 269–84, 287–317 see also assessments; construct systems; Experience Cycle Methodology choices 89–91, 189–219 computer-aided constructivism 7, 10, 11, 24, 29, 36–7, 40, 77, 162–5, 170–2, 183–219 definition 3–5, 71–2, 130, 131, 149–50, 170, 185–7 Dewey’s influences 185–7 features 3–44, 130, 131, 149–52, 185–9 finite number of constructs 152 functions 3–44 future research 43–4 hierarchical system 4–44, 170, 172–6, 194–219, 259–65 overview 3–5 qualitative research 37–44, 53–65 theory of man 3, 185–7 personal description method, adolescents 296, 301–2, 304–7, 313 personal-agentic level, narratives 249 personal-record approach, selfcharacterizations 38–41 philosophy 54, 72–3, 185–7, 287–94, 312–13 ladders 72–3 PCP with adolescents 287–94, 312–13 research 54 photographs 271, 284 see also drawings . . .

Picasso 204–7 pictures 269–84, 296, 307–9, 313 see also drawings . . . poems 258–65 poles 7–24, 30–4, 35–7, 71–85, 89–106, 112–27, 149–57, 159–81, 194–219, 272–84, 302–13 see also bipolar . . .; choices; ladders contrasting drawings/ pictures 272–3 ‘dichotomous differentiating and integrating’ units 149–50, 270–1, 272–84 grids from multiple selfcharacterizations 124–7 hierarchies 194–219 implication grids 5, 6, 24–30, 42–4, 77–8, 91, 154–7, 172–3 positive and negative implications 93–106, 120–1, 125–7, 132–43 repertory grids 7–24, 149–57, 159–81 resistance-to-change grids 35–7, 155–6 politics 122 positive affect content analysis scales 223, 226, 229–39 see also positive tone . . . definition 226 reliability of measures 229–30 validity of measures 231–6 positive and negative implications, poles 93–106, 120–1, 125–7, 132–43 positive and negative tones content analysis scales 226–39 see also content analysis scales . . . positive outlooks, coping styles 291, 306–7 positive tone content analysis scales 226–39

Index see also origin . . .; positive affect . . .; sociality . . . positivism 54–65 see also empirical analysis; objectivity . . .; reliability . . .; replicability . . .; validity . . . definition 54–5 post-traumatic stress disorder 99–100 post-treatment assessments, fixed-role therapy 98 potential implicative invalidation 142–3 practitioners 5–44, 55–65, 90–106, 109–27, 130–43, 224–5, 247–65, 269–85, 287–317 adolescents 287–317 countertransference 294 drawings/pictures 269–84, 294 professional subsuming of personal constructs 117–18, 269–70, 283–4, 294–5 role relationships 109–11, 117–18, 224–5, 269–70, 292–4, 312–13 transparency issues 292–3 predictions 4–44, 130–43, 192–219, 257–65, 316 see also anticipation; construct systems; templets predictive and concurrent validity of repertory grids 18–19 preferred self 31–2, 73–85 see also ladders preparations 192–219 see also anticipation; templets principal component analysis 162–5, 168–9, 170, 184–5, 211–19 PrinGrid computer program 214–16 prior theories, credibility criteria threats 57–8 pro-symptom positions 92–106 see also ABC model proactiveness 99–100, 291

339

problem approach, self-characterizations 39–41 problem solving 127, 291, 306–13 problematic positions, ABC model 92–106, 132–43 problems 39–41, 91–106, 127, 252–3, 256–65, 289, 291, 295, 306–13 see also ABC model advantages of remaining the same 93–106, 133–4 processes narratives 255 nature of construing 130–43, 270, 274–84 Procrustean analysis techniques 217 professional subsuming of personal constructs, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 117–18, 269–70, 283–4, 294–5 propagation processes 196–219 proportional indices 172–3 protocols, Kelly’s approach to analysis 112–18 Prozac 304 psychiatric nurses 33 psychoanalysis 112–13 psychodynamic perspectives 226–39 psychological problems 252–3, 256–65, 289, 295 causes 256–7, 289, 295 definition 256 narratives of identity 252–3 psychological space 184–5, 198, 211–19 computer-aided constructivism 211–19 concepts 184–5, 198, 211–19 crossplots 212–13 psychology see also practitioners logic boundaries 190 qualitative research 53–4, 65

340

Index

psychometrics 32–3, 36–7, 40, 223–4, 228–39 see also content analysis; validity . . . ladders 32–3 resistance-to-change grids 36–7 self-characterizations 40 psychotherapy 53–4, 65, 95–106, 109–27, 247–65, 269–84, 287–317 see also personal construct psychotherapy case examples 257–65 client reasons 256–7, 291 collaborative dialogues to transform the narratives of identity 252–3, 257–65 definition 252–3, 256–7 drawings/pictures 269–84, 294 ECM 257–65 goals 256–7 intelligibility needs 257–65 metaphors 263–5, 272–3, 281, 311 narrative assessments 247–65 not-yet-said narratives 252–3 qualitative research 53–4, 65 reasons 256–7, 289–90, 291 selected dimensions of narrative analysis in psychotherapy 253–65 transformation needs 257–65 ‘purposeless drift’ 250 PVAFF repertory grid measure 9–24 pyramiding technique 73–4 see also ladders qualitative analyses 37–44, 53–65, 131–2, 141–3, 156–7, 223–39 see also content analysis definition 54, 131 qualitative data, definition 54 qualitative research 37–44, 53–65, 71–85, 89–106, 109–27, 129–43, 156–7, 223–39

see also confirmability . . .; credibility . . .; dependability . . .; transferability . . . audit trails 63–5 concepts 53–65 critique 56, 57–65 definition 53, 54 epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying research 53–65, 78–9, 188–9 evaluation terms 56, 142 goals 54 interdependencies between researchers/participants 55–65, 225 possible criteria 53–65, 141–2 quantitative research 53–4, 64–5, 132, 141, 156–7, 223–39 rigorous criteria 56–65, 141–3 quantitative analyses 10, 40–1, 43–4, 53–4, 64–5, 141–3, 149–57, 159–81, 183–219, 223–39 definition 54 quantitative data, definition 54 quantitative research 10, 40–1, 43–4, 53–4, 64–5, 129, 130, 132, 140–3, 149–57, 159–81, 183–219, 223–39 see also content analysis; reliability . . .; validity . . . critique 53–4, 64–5 definition 54 ECM 129, 130, 132, 140–3 epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying research 53–65, 188–9 goals 54 qualitative research 53–4, 64–5, 132, 141, 156–7, 223–39 quasi grids, repertory grids 20, 172–5 quasi-order relations 172–5 questionnaires 77–8, 130, 142–3

Index Ralph’s example, adolescents 293, 295, 307–9 random data grids 161 range of convenience 117–18, 193–219, 227–8 see also experiences; templets rank order repertory grids, definition 153–4 rapport needs, adolescents 292–3 rating scales 6–24, 149–57, 173, 195–219 see also repertory grids Ravenette, Tom 272–3, 282–3, 287–312 reactor relationships, content analysis scales 226–39 readymade art items 203–4 realities 3–44, 55–65, 91–106, 248–65 reasoning 248–65 reciprocity criteria 65 see also credibility . . .; qualitative research reconstructed experiences 256–65, 284, 294–317 recycling goals of consumers 78 referrals, adolescents 292–4 reflection against context, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 114, 271 reflexivity characteristic 172–3, 287–317 reframed constructs 96, 256–65 relational being 264–5 relational constructivism 250–65 relationships 4–44, 71–85, 109–27, 151–7, 159–81, 201–2, 226–39 see also construct networks; repertory grids; subordinate . . .; superordinate . . .; templets content analysis scales 226–39 conversational aspects 251–3 hierarchical classes analysis 170–5

341

implication grids 6, 24–30, 154–7, 172–6 relaxation activities, coping styles 291, 306–7, 310–13 relevance, templets 196–219 reliability of measures 11–24, 26–8, 29–30, 34, 36–7, 40, 56, 63, 64, 141–2, 224, 228–36 see also dependability . . .; quantitative research; test-retest . . . content analysis scales 224, 228–36 definition 63 implication grids 26–8, 29–30 ladders 34 repertory grids 11–24, 27–8 resistance-to-change grids 36–7 self-characterizations 40 religion 255–6, 259, 262, 289, 291 Rep 5 computer program 196–8, 219 repertory grids 5, 6–24, 27–8, 29, 35, 40, 42–4, 91, 96–8, 149–57, 159–81, 184–219 see also assessments; bipolar constructs; elements; events; objects; people; rating scales; relationships advantages 21–3, 176 analyses 7–8, 157, 159–81, 206–19 applications 10–11, 19, 23–4, 29, 42–4, 91, 96–8, 157, 159–81 art objects 206–7 clinical applications 10–11, 19, 23–4, 157 cluster analysis 160–1, 162, 165–8, 184–5, 207–19 comparisons with other methods 27–8, 29, 42–4 computer programs 7, 10, 11, 24, 29, 162–5, 170–2, 184–219 concepts 6–24, 40, 42–4, 91, 96–7, 149–57, 159–81, 201–19

342

Index

repertory grids (Continued ) construct system differentiation 9–24, 149–57 creation methods 7, 150–7, 206–19 critique 21–4, 42, 44, 91, 176 definition 6–7, 42, 150–7, 201–2, 206–7 discriminant validity of measures 20–2, 149–57 element placement 10–24, 150–7 examples 7, 96–8, 151–7, 205–19 formal concept analysis 170–2 goals 6–7, 152–7 hierarchical classes analysis 170–5, 207–19 hierarchical modeling approach 170, 172–6, 207–19 historical background 149–50 holiday resorts 209–10 household furnishing 207–9 implication grids 27–8, 29, 42–4, 172–6 internal and construct validity of measures 19–21 learning situations 210–19 limitations and cautions 23–4, 42, 91 measures 7–24, 159–81 multidimensional ‘terrain’ 152–7 multiple grids 213–19 new analysis approaches 159, 168–76 new configuration approaches to analysis 159, 169–76 newer indices 168–9 overview 6–7, 151–7 popularity 11, 23 predictive and concurrent validity of measures 18–19 principal component analysis 162–5, 168–9, 184–5, 211–19

publications 6–24 quasi grids 20, 172–5 reliability of measures 11–24, 27–8 research applications 10–11, 19, 23–4, 157 response formats 7–24, 152–7 Role Construct Repertory Test 6, 149–52 semantic networks 202–19 traditional analysis approaches 159–81 unstable periods of life 17–18 validity of measures 18–21, 42–4 voting predictions 19 Vygotskian influences 150–1 within-construct differentiation 10–24 repgrids see repertory grids replicability claims 64 see also confirmability . . .; quantitative research representation tradition 159 representativeness in qualitative research 61–2 see also qualitative research; transferability . . . research applications 10–11, 19, 23–4, 25–6, 31–2, 38–40, 53–65, 71, 85, 185–219, 290–1 see also future research; qualitative . . .; quantitative . . . adolescent coping 290–1 epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying research 53–65, 78–9, 188–9 implication grids 25–6 ladders 31–2, 71, 85 philosophy 54 repertory grids 10–11, 19, 23–4, 157 resistance-to-change grids 36 self-characterizations 38–40, 126–7

Index resistance-to-change grids 5, 6, 28, 32, 35–7, 42–4, 73, 91, 155–6 see also assessments; construct–construct grids advantages 37 applications 36–7, 42–3, 91, 155–6 comparisons with other methods 42–3 computer program shortfalls 36–7 concepts 6, 28, 35–7, 42–4, 91, 155–6 creation methods 35, 155–6 critique 36–7, 42–3 definition 6, 35–6, 42–3, 155–6 examples 35, 36 implication grids 28 limitations 36–7, 42–3 psychometrics 36–7 reliability of measures 36–7 scores yielded 35 validity of measures 36–7, 42–3 respecting dignity ABC example 103–4 response formats 7–24, 152–7 see also binary . . .; elicitation; rank order . . .; rating scales; repertory grids response latencies 74–5 restatement of argument, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 115–16, 271 restorative justice and dehumanization ABC example 101–3 revised personal theories 4–44, 129–46 rich data 157, 271, 273 right hemispheric spatio-temporal processes 249 rigorous qualitative research methods 56–65, 141–3 see also confirmability . . .; credibility . . .; dependability . . .; transferability . . .

343

risk-taking experiences, adolescents 129, 132–43 Rogerian therapist 184 Role Construct Repertory Test 6, 149–52 see also repertory grids role models, adolescents 306–7 role plays 95–6, 121–7 role relationships 109–11, 117–18, 224–5, 269–70, 292–4, 312–13 see also self-characterizations adolescents 292–4, 312–13 Rose’s narrative 254 ruminations 83 St Luke’s strength cards 309–10 salient poles 195–219, 248, 289–90, 304–7 see also poles Samoan girls 63 samples elements, definition 150–1 sampling issues, verbal data 225–6 SAS see Sociotropic-Autonomy Scale schemas 201–2, 248–65 see also memory definition 201–2, 248–9 schizophrenics, repertory grids 19 scientists 4–44, 129–30, 149–50, 257–8 see also Experience Cycle Methodology concepts 4–5, 129–30, 257–8 segmentation of consumers, laddering uses 77–8 self concepts 5–24, 31–2, 43–4, 93–106, 120–7, 169, 171–2, 187, 247–65, 271–84, 289–317 adolescents 289–317 drawings/pictures 271–84 many selves self-characterization elaboration concept 121–7 narrative assessments 247–65

344

Index

self concepts (Continued ) strength cards 296, 309–10, 313 ‘Who Are You’ structured interviews 296–301, 309–10, 313 self implication grids 26–30 see also implication grids self-awareness 31–2, 93–106, 291–317 self-characterizations 5, 6, 37–44, 109–27, 151, 247–65, 271, 277–84 see also assessments; fixed-role therapy; narratives; third-party narratives adolescents 120–1 advantages 39, 41, 127 analyses 112–27, 271, 277–84 applications 38–39, 43, 109–27, 151, 271, 277–84 approaches 38–9, 109–27 children 40, 121, 271 clinical applications 38–39, 120–7, 277–84 comparisons with other methods 43 computer programs 40 concepts 6, 37–44, 109–27, 247–65, 271 creation methods 37–9, 111 critique 39–41, 43, 126–7 definition 6, 37–8, 43, 109–11 elaborations 120–7, 277–84 elicitation 111, 119, 151 examples 111, 112–21, 123–7, 277–84 ‘family characterization sketch’ 120–1, 126–7 goals 6, 37–8, 43, 109–11, 127 grids from multiple selfcharacterizations 124–7 guidelines for new users 41, 109–27 identification processes with the client 118–19

Kelly’s approach to analysis 112–18, 127, 271 limitations 40–1, 43, 126–7 many selves concept 121–7 outside-to-inside approach 39–41 personal-record approach 38–41 problem approach 39–41 psychometrics 40 reliability of measures 40 research applications 38–40, 126–7 scoring problems 126–7 self-esteem 120–1 Terry’s case 112–20, 123–7 textual grids 119 treatments 120–7 usage examples 120–7 validity of measures 40, 43, 120 variations 38–40, 119–27 self-congruence, ladders 31 self-contradiction, ladders 31 self-defeating cycles, adolescents 307–8 self-esteem 10–24, 43–4, 120–1, 169, 171–2 self-characterizations 120–1 self-ideal discrepancy repertory grid measure 10–24, 120–1, 169, 171–2 self-focus tendencies of adolescents 291 self-harm 297–301 self-ideal discrepancy repertory grid measure 10–24, 120–1, 169, 171–2 definition 10 reliability of measures 14–18 validity of measures 21–4 self-image profile (SIP) 161, 179–81 self-narratives see narratives self-other discrepancy repertory grid measure 10–24, 160–1, 171–2 definition 10

Index reliability of measures 14–18 validity of measures 21–4 self–other measures 10–24, 160–1 semantic networks 183–4, 202–19 see also computer-aided constructivism; frames definition 202–3 semi-structured interviews 129, 131–43 see also Experience Cycle Methodology concepts 129, 131–43 definition 132 sense of self, ‘Who Are You’ structured interviews 296–301, 309–10, 313 sense-making 5–6, 55–65, 151–7, 255–65, 296–317 sensorial cortex 248–9 sexuality 116, 138–40, 143 shared experiences 189–219, 250–3 shared relationships, content analysis scales 226–39 Shaw, Mildred L.G. 183–222 Shawver, Lois 263 shifting emphasis, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 115, 271 shoes, laddering examples 72–3, 79–80 Sierra Leone psychiatric hospital ABC example 104–5 Simon and Garfunkel 252 Sinatra, Frank 247 singing in therapy 271 single-linkage clustering 162, 166–8 singular value decomposition (SVD) 162–5 see also principal component analysis SIP see self-image profile Situational Resources Repertory Tests see Dependency Grids

345

Slater’s principal component analysis 162–5, 184–5, 211–19 smoking 93 social incompetence 92 social performances of the life scripts, narratives 249 social skills groups 96–8 social systems 99–106, 255–65, 291 ABC model 99–106 coping styles 291 sociality content analysis scales 223, 226, 229–39 see also positive tone . . . definition 226 reliability of measures 229–30 validity of measures 232–6 Sociality Corollary 101–2, 116, 216–17 SocioGrids computer program 216–17 Sociotropic-Autonomy Scale (SAS) 26 ‘soft’ laddering 76–8, 80 see also ladders soldiers, dehumanization methods 102 solidarity relationships, content analysis scales 226–39 sports 311 spreading activation mechanisms 196–219 standard deviations 157 Stein, Miriam 287–317 stepwise replication of analysis see also triangulation . . . definition 59–60 stories 248–65, 295–317 Buddhist tales 312 life stories 248–65, 308–9 storytelling technique 120–1 strength cards, adolescents 296, 309–10, 313

346

Index

stress management techniques 306 structured interviews 6–24, 59, 129, 131–43, 294–5, 296–301, 313 see also repertory grids concepts 6, 131–2, 296–301, 313 definition 131–2 ‘Who Are You’ structured interviews 296–301, 309–10, 313 stuttering 25, 32, 36, 74, 233 subject positions conversations 251–3 voices 251–2 subjectivist assumptions, narratives 253, 255 subordinate construct relationships 4–5, 25–30, 32–3, 35–7, 42–4, 71–85, 171–2, 195–219 see also ladders suicide 99–100, 258–65 summary indices 159–81 summery statistics 157 see also means; standard deviations superordinate construct relationships 4–5, 25–30, 32–3, 34–7, 42–4, 71–85, 171–2, 195–219 see also ladders supplementation processes, conversations 251 support-of-others coping styles, adolescents 291 SVD see singular value decomposition symbol grounding problem 190 symbols 190, 270–84, 311 see also drawings/pictures; metaphors symptoms 90–106 see also ABC model advantages and disadvantages 90–1 tattoos 161, 169, 171–2, 179–81 technology 183–219, 236–9 see also computer . . . Kelly’s views 183–5

templets 191–219 see also anticipation; construct networks; construct systems; experiences; range of convenience art objects 199–201, 203–19 complex templet structures 198–203 connotations of complex templates 199–202 definition 191–5 entailment relations 192–219 household furnishing 207–9 incompatibility relations 192–219 lexical entailments 205 logical relations 192–5 representations of complex templets 199–201 representations of logical relations 193–5, 199–201 terminology 201–2 terminal values see also values definition 76–7 Terry’s case, selfcharacterizations 112–20, 123–7 test-retest reliability of measures 11–24, 26–8, 34, 228–36 see also reliability . . . implication grids 26–8 ladders 34 repertory grids 11–24 testing 4–44, 58, 60–1, 228–36 testing emerging theories against the data, credibility criteria 58, 60–1 textual data 54–65 see also qualitative data textual grids, selfcharacterizations 119 thematic analysis, Kelly’s approach to self-characterization analysis 116–17, 271

Index thematization concepts, narratives 258–65 theory of man 3, 185–7 therapists see practitioners therapy sessions 37, 109–10, 287–317 see also practitioners; psychotherapy missed therapy sessions 37 relaxation practices 311 thick descriptive data 61–2 third-party narratives 37–44, 111–27 see also self-characterizations Thomas-Shaw clustering 162, 166, 184–5, 207–8 see also cluster analysis threats 117–18, 121, 259–60, 295–317 tight construing 117–18, 274–84, 295–317 time-binding therapy 98 time-dimensional narratives, voices 251–2 time-limited interventions, adolescents 293 top of the ladder, recognition methods 83–5 transferability criteria 53, 61–2, 64–5, 142 see also external validity; qualitative research; typicality . . .; validity . . . concepts 61–2, 65, 142 critique 64–5 definition 61–2, 65 improvement methods 61–2 transference 117–18, 294 transformation needs, psychotherapy 257–65 transitive diagnoses adolescents 290 drawings/pictures 269–70, 274–84 transitivity characteristic 172–3 translation issues, content analysis scales 236

347

transparency issues, practitioners 292–3 transvaluations 263–5 trapped ‘dominant narratives’ 256–7 trauma 99–100, 254, 258–65, 289–90, 303–7 treatments 5–6, 11, 25–6, 31–2, 33–4, 37, 38–41, 55–6, 74–5, 85, 90–1, 92–106, 116–17, 120–1, 126–7, 129, 132–43, 247–65, 269–84, 287–317 see also psychotherapy adolescents 120–1, 129, 132–43, 287–317 concepts 5–6, 11, 25–6, 31–2, 33–4, 37, 39–41, 55–6 drawings/pictures 269–84, 294, 296, 307–9, 313 ECM 257–65 family therapy 11, 120–1, 126–7 fixed-role therapy 39–40, 98, 126–7 ladders 296, 302–7, 313 marital therapy 11, 32, 39 narrative assessments 247–65 new constructs 11, 25–6, 39–40, 116–17, 126–7, 256–7, 262–5, 272–84, 295–317 PCP 11, 97–8, 231–6, 287–317 personal description method 296, 301–2, 304–7, 313 relaxation/meditation/imagery/ stories 291, 306–7, 310–13 self-characterizations 120–7 strength cards 296, 309–10, 313 ‘Who Are You’ structured interviews 296–301, 309–10, 313 Trevor’s narrative 255 triadic elicitation 151–7 ‘triangular inequality’ of distances 169 triangulation improvement methods credibility criteria 58–61 critique 60

348

Index

triple loop learning 105 trust/mistrust bipolar concepts, adolescents 289 trust/mistrust subscale of CASPM 227–38 Tschudi, Finn 89–108 Tych, A.M. 226–35 typicality criteria 65 see also qualitative research; transferability . . . UK 159, 162–8 ultrastable systems 203 see also cybernetic models uncertainty principle 218, 227–8 unprotected sex example, ECM 134–6, 143 unstable periods of life, repertory grids 17–18 US 159 validity of measures 18–21, 27–30, 32–3, 36–7, 40, 42–4, 56, 61–2, 64, 74–5, 141–2, 224, 228–36 see also credibility . . .; psychometrics; quantitative research; transferability . . . content analysis scales 224, 228–36 implication grids 27–30, 42–4 ladders 32–3, 43, 74–5 repertory grids 18–21, 42–4 resistance-to-change grids 36–7, 42–3 self-characterizations 40, 43, 120 values 6, 56–65, 71–85, 104–5, 194–219, 270–84, 293–317 see also central core . . .; ladders concepts 75–85, 130–5 construct networks 194–219

cultural issues 104 types 75–7 variances 161–81 verbal data 223–39, 270–1, 284, 294–5, 296–301 see also content analysis open concepts 225 sampling issues 225–6 translation issues 236 Viney, Linda L. 53–68, 129–46, 223–43, 269–85 voices, subject positions 251–2 voting predictions, repertory grids Vygotskian influences, repertory grids 150–1

19

Walker, Beverly M. 71–87, 302 wartorn societies, islands of civility 105 WebGrid computer program 7, 209–11, 219 Weizenbaum’s techniques 184–5 Westbrook, M.T. 226–35 ‘what’ questions, ladders 74–85 ‘Who Are You’ structured interviews, adolescents 296–301, 309–10, 313 ‘why’ questions 72–4, 80–5, 302–7 see also ladders windows exercise, adolescents 311–12 Winter, David 89–108, 233 within-construct differentiation, repertory grid measures 10–24 words 54–65, 296–301 see also qualitative analyses ‘worst’ possibilities, art objects 201 written records 59, 225–39, 271 see also content analysis; narratives; qualitative research