|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ONTOLOGICAL
ACCELERATION AND HUMAN AGENCY
|
|
|
Spencer A. McWilliams |
|
|
California State University San Marcos, USA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
In ‘Ontological
Acceleration,’ Kelly described human evolution as a continuing process that
remains actively in transition and suggested that we view human behavior itself
as an example of this evolutionary process. Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
(SCT) presents an intriguingly parallel view emphasizing human agency as a
central factor in a coevolutionary process. Both Personal Construct Psychology
(PCP) and SCT emphasize the proactive role of humans in establishing views of
the future, anticipating and assessing outcomes, and managing and guiding
goal-directed actions. This paper describes some of these parallels and
proposes ways that these approaches might mutually inform and elaborate each
other in these convivial views.
Keywords: co-evolution, human agency, personal construct psychology, social
cognitive theory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KELLY,
‘ONTOLOGICAL ACCELERATION,’ AND HUMAN EVOLUTION
I have long found Kelly’s (1979a) paper
‘Ontological Acceleration’ among his most fertile and provocative works. I have
read it many times, and although I will not attempt to summarize all of the
rich and varied ideas he presented in this paper, I can describe my perspective
on some of the propositions that have continued to intrigue me. Followers of
Kelly know that he emphasized the anticipatory nature of human behavior. In
‘Ontological Acceleration’ he substantially elaborated that emphasis by
describing human activity as an active, participating contributor to on-going
human evolution. He contrasted his perspective with what he saw as a
contemporary view of Darwinism, which suggested that evolution had ‘run its
course,’ implying that we can now study the final results, enabling us ultimately
to predict and control behavior.
This perspective on evolution, perhaps not
too different from some current evolutionary psychology views, seems to suggest
that we can look to the past, in this case the “contingencies of survival” that
have led to the evolution of particular species characteristics, to explain
current behavior. Kelly described how this view leads to a past-oriented
sequential explanation of behavior, whether from a behaviorist
(stimulus-response-reinforcement) or psychoanalytic (unconscious motives)
perspective. Since the past has led to the present, we should be able to nail
down the causes of current action by looking at the past.
Kelly, as you might expect, tended to look
at the situation in his fresh, unique way. Rather than seeing a person’s
response or behavior as the psychologist’s dependent variable, the outcome of
past causes, which assumes regularity of relations between antecedent events
and behavior, Kelly encouraged us to view behavior as the person’s independent
variable, a method used to pose questions and change those very circumstances
that we thought determined what the person would do.
Kelly rejected the perspective that
‘evolution has run its course’: “Human behavior is itself an evolutionary
process” (1979a, p. 23). He suggested that human behavior has not become
solidified and routine, that it remains actively in transition, “…perhaps
transforming itself at a pace no other aspect of nature has ever matched”
(1979a, p. 23). ‘Human nature’ does not stand still long enough for the
psychologist to nail it down and determine its parameters; rather, it continues
to unfold itself in new and creative ways. Kelly suggested that psychologists
should join and participate in this unfolding rather than attempting to explain
behavior in terms of the repetition of prior patterns.
This does not mean that Kelly had no
interest in prediction and control. In fact, he was extremely interested, as a
psychologist, in prediction and control. However, for him that meant, rather than
seeking to predict and control others, seeing human behavior itself as a
process of prediction and control. He wanted to know what the individual wished
to predict or anticipate, what guidelines or channels (i.e., constructs) the
person used for this process, what alternatives the person saw available, and
how human behavior changes the environment. He proposed that we cannot
determine the meaning of behavior until we see the outcomes of this active
participation, and this process continues to evolve as failures to predict
effectively lead to reassessment and revision of the tentative guidelines, and
even confirmed predictions only yield “tentative evidence that one may be on
the track of something” (1979a, p. 39) rather than firm and final conclusions.
Focus on Kelly’s suggestion that we view
human behavior and human nature as still very actively evolving and that
sequential explanation of that behavior requires looking not only at the past
but also at the future, in terms of the individual’s anticipations and
constructions. I would like to elaborate on these ideas and some of their
implications for psychology in general and PCP in particular by indulging
myself in one of my habitual tendencies: articulating connections,
compatibilities, similarities, and potential synergies between Kellian and
constructivist views and other perspectives that I view as convivial.
I do this in the context of this conference
collection with some trepidation, remembering that two of my early PCP congress
papers, which I still think were relatively good (McWilliams, 1979; McWilliams,
1983), did not get selected for inclusion in the congress book partly because
the editors perceived them as devoting too much coverage to concepts from
theories other than PCP. I should have learned something from that experience,
but I seem to have once more slipped into my old habit of reading something new
and saying to myself, ‘that sounds very similar to something that Kelly said,
and I think there’s some compatibility there that might be interesting, so
let’s take a look at it.’ I hope that members of the PCP community will find
this potentially heretical approach at least tolerable and, ideally, might find
something of interest too.
BANDURA’S SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
In 2006, I happened to pick up an issue of
the new APS journal Perspectives on
Psychological Science, and read an article by Albert Bandura (2006a)
describing a psychology of human agency. I have known of Bandura’s work for
more than forty years, having my first exposure to his early studies on social
learning (Bandura & Walters, 1963) in an undergraduate course, and as I
read this article I found myself responding to several of his current points in
terms of my ‘synergy’ and ‘conviviality’ tendencies. His view of human evolution
and human agency reminded me of Kelly’s perspective in ‘Ontological
Acceleration’ and struck me as closely related to Kelly’s emphasis on
anticipation, prediction, and construct revision. This led me to review some
other of Bandura’s recent works (1994; 1999; 2001; 2002; 2005; 2006b) to see
whether this initial impression held up. Indeed, it has (otherwise I would have
abandoned the idea and would be writing about something else), so I decided to
explore it and see what I could learn.
My goal in this presentation is to describe
some of the elements of Bandura’s theory of Human Agency that seem most
relevant to Kelly’s notions of human evolution and orientation toward
anticipating the future. I approach the daunting task of summarizing major
elements of SCT with the same trepidation that I felt in summarizing Kelly’s
ideas, and, once more, I will emphasize those ideas and concepts that appear
most relevant to the conviviality between the two approaches and the theme of
this paper.
Bandura and evolution
Bandura’s perspective on evolution closely
parallels Kelly’s rejection of the ‘evolution has run its course’ point of
view, and builds on recent work in evolutionary psychology that occurred
following Kelly’s death. Similarly to Kelly, Bandura rejects what he describes
as ‘one-sided evolutionism’ which sees evolution as having shaped behavior but
ignores the continuing evolutionary process and its relation to human
innovation. He supports a “bidirectional view of evolutionary processes” (2001,
p. 20) that emphasizes how evolutionary pressures fostered qualities that
enable humans to develop tools and alter their environments, leading to new
selection pressures which supported the development of cognitive capabilities,
language, thought, symbolic communication, and the construction of social and
cultural environments. Within a major construct dimension of the evolutionary
psychology debate, Bandura sides with Gould’s ‘loose leash’ or ‘biological
potentialist’ view of the effect of biology on culture that emphasizes human
possibilities, contrasted with Wilson’s ‘tight leash’ or ‘biological
determinist’ perspective that emphasizes inherited constraints and limits. In
the context of ‘Ontological Acceleration’, we can imagine that Kelly might well
have resonated with Bandura’s (2001) statement:
…(H)human
lifestyles are, in large part, experientially fashioned within biological
limits rather than come ready made. The exercise of agentic capabilities is a
prime player in the human coevolution process. People are not only reactors to
selection pressures, but they are producers of new ones at an increasingly
dizzying pace. …As people devise ever more powerful technologies that enable
them to fashion some aspects of their nature, the psychosocial side of
coevolution is gaining ascendancy. Thus, through agentic genetic engineering,
humans are becoming major agents of their own evolution, for better or worse. (p. 22)
Human
agency
Bandura’s view of human agency emphasizes
how people exercise control over their lives and can be viewed as producers of
the world in which they live as well as products of it. Like Kelly, Bandura
emphasizes an explanation of behavior that focuses not only on the effect of
past circumstances on present behavior, but also on its purposive, constructive,
anticipatory nature. To succeed in the complex world people must anticipate the
effects of various actions and events, determine their capabilities, analyze
opportunities and constraints, and regulate their actions. Their beliefs
represent a model of the world that they use as a guide in achieving desired
outcomes and avoiding undesirable consequences. Bandura views people as
purposive beings who act to bring about desired events rather than simply
responding to situational forces and personality structures. Bandura said, in
terms that could have just as easily been penned by Kelly, “In experimental
situations, participants try to figure out what is wanted of them; they
construct hypotheses and reflectively test their adequacy by evaluating the
results of their actions; they set personal goals and otherwise motivate
themselves…” (2001, p. 5). In his discussion of human agency, Bandura describes
many of the process of the active personal scientist metaphor that Kelly so
effectively articulated.
Bandura elaborates human agency, what to
him being human means, by articulating its four core features: intentionality,
forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflectiveness. Additionally, Bandura
views the implementation of human agency as taking different forms: personal
agency, proxy agency, and collective agency. Finally, Bandura describes the
important concept of perceived self-efficacy, referring to individuals’
assessment of their ability to succeed in the actions relevant to implementing
human agency. I will briefly summarize each of these components.
Intentionality. Human agency refers to intentional acts, a representation of a
course of action cast into the future with a commitment to bringing events
about. Humans originate actions, and develop plans to execute them. In the same
way that Kelly described anticipation in terms of general dimensions, Bandura
describes future-directed plans as not specified fully at the beginning, since
we cannot anticipate all of the details of a situation, and often respond to
fortuitous events. Like the social constructionists, Bandura emphasizes that
most human activities involve participation with others in joint activities
requiring shared intentions and the coordination of individual action plans.
Forethought. Shotter (2007) discussed Kelly’s emphasis on time and the
sequential unfolding of events and actions. Bandura’s emphasis on forethought
echoes this emphasis on a future time perspective and the extension of human
agency in time. In setting goals, anticipating the possible consequences of
alternate actions, and creating actions likely to lead to desirable outcomes,
people actively anticipate the future, and use that forethought to provide
direction, meaning, and coherence. By representing future events cognitively,
people construct expectations and goals, and projected outcomes serve to
motivate and regulate behavior.
Self-Reactiveness. Having intentions and anticipating future events do not, by
themselves, make things happen. Once people commit to an intention and adopt a
plan of action they must take a specific course of action and monitor and
regulate their execution of their plan, assessing their performance in terms of
personally meaningful criteria, and taking necessary corrective actions. They
compare their actual performance with goals that have meaning within their
personal value (construct) system and provide purpose and direction.
Self-Reflectiveness. Like good ‘personal scientists’, people must assess their
functioning and the adequacy of their behavior, evaluating their pursuits and
values, and addressing conflicts. Personal agency and personal effectiveness
rest on people’s assessment of their ability to exercise effective control over
themselves and the events in their environment. Since this aspect of human
agency, perceived self-efficacy, has a central role in Bandura’s SCT, it
requires further explication below.
Modes
of Agency. As stated above, Bandura distinguishes
three forms through which human agency takes place: personal, proxy, and collective.
Most of our psychological analyses focus on how individuals exercise their
personal agency and effectiveness individually. People regularly exercise
personal agency, through its associated cognitive, motivational, and choice
processes, in order to produce desirable effects in their lives. In many
instances, however, people do not have direct control over situations that
affect them on a daily basis, and in other situations people perceive that they
may not have the necessary skills or they do not wish to burden themselves with
direct control. In such instances, people use human agency to get others to act
to obtain the outcomes they desire. For example, although I have some of the
skills necessary to maintain my home landscaping, I choose to hire a professional
gardener to care for the yard, both because of his greater skill and my lack of
desire to do the work (i.e., been there, done that). Many other human goals
require interdependent social actions that require coordination with others. SCT
views human functioning as embedded in social systems, with personal agency
occurring within a context of social and cultural influences. People act
conjointly on the basis of shared beliefs, including their collective ability
to produce desirable consequences, a conception elaborated by social
constructionists. Current efforts at energy conservation and reducing global
warming represent a good example of collective human agency.
Self-Efficacy. Bandura (1999) defines perceived self-efficacy as “people’s
beliefs in their capabilities to perform in ways that give them some control
over events that affect their lives” (p. 181). Self-efficacy serves as a basic
foundation for human agency, since people have incentive to act if they believe
they can produce desirable results through their behavior. People construct
their self-efficacy beliefs through various processes, including direct
experience of personal mastery, vicarious experiences observing similar people
succeeding, persuasion by others, and their assessment of their physical and
emotional states and capabilities. Many personal, social, and environmental
factors influence how people perceive, reflect upon, and interpret experiences
and how they integrate them into their sense of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is
also affected by what information people attend to, influenced by their
perceptual biases and other personal and situational variables, and how people
integrate that information into their perception of their capabilities. Efficacy
beliefs influence how people perceive events, how motivated they are to perform
actions, how they cope with threat, anxiety and demands, and whether they set
realistic and appropriate goals.
Bandura’s work demonstrates that perceived
self-efficacy can have a major influence on human effectiveness and well-being.
Those with high levels of perceived self-efficacy demonstrate greater cognitive
resourcefulness, effectiveness in dealing with their environments, and greater
flexibility. They set appropriate challenges, focus on worthwhile
opportunities, and imagine successful actions that they use to guide their
behavior. They attribute failure to inadequate strategies or insufficient
effort, and when faced with obstacles they increase their effort and construct
better strategies. They view threats without distress, reduce anxiety by
effectively addressing threatening situations and altering the environment in
positive ways. They see difficulties as something to master rather than avoid,
set appropriate goals, and sustain their commitments. By focusing on successful
performance, attributing failure to remediable factors such as lack of skill,
poor strategies, or insufficient effort, they recover their self-efficacy
following failures.
Those with low levels of self-efficacy
imagine actions that will fail, hamper their effectiveness by focusing on what
might go wrong, and dwell on risks rather than opportunities. They tend to
ascribe their failures to low ability, circumstances, or “luck,” and when faced
with obstacles they reduce their effort, give up, or accept a lower-level
outcome. They view threats with anxiety, dwell on their deficiencies, see
danger and risk, and impair their functioning by creating distress. They avoid
difficult tasks, maintain low aspirations, experience self-doubts, focus on
obstacles, and do not recover well following failure. They thus remain
vulnerable to stress, anxiety, and depression.
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY AND PERSONAL CONSTRUCT
PSYCHOLOGY
This review of major SCT concepts related
to human agency should, I hope, demonstrate its compatibility with the PCP
perspective, including the emphasis on understanding people’s psychological
processes in terms of how they go about anticipating events, and the personal
scientist metaphor that focuses on various steps and processes involved in
articulating goals, implementing experiments, and revising understanding. However,
I can well imagine at this point that some members of the PCP community may
still wonder why PCP psychologists should care about SCT and what relevance
Bandura’s theory might have for Personal Construct Psychology. Since we don’t
ordinarily include Bandura’s SCT among constructivist theories, we may still
question the compatibility of his perspective with constructivism in general
and PCP in particular, so let me explore the issue a little further.
I note a number of similarities between
Bandura and Kelly personally, in terms of their early life and its impact on
their approach to psychology and their career interests. Both grew up in the
North American Great Plains (Bandura in Alberta,
Kelly in Kansas),
which they both emphasized as an environment that required people to make
something of their circumstances. For example, Bandura (2006b) described how
the austere environment supported using one’s “agentic capabilities for
constructing most of one’s life environment,” and stating explicitly that
“constructionism was a vital lifestyle, not an abstract psychological theory”
in his life (p. 44). Both developed comprehensive theories of personality
emphasizing the active role of the person in making something of their
experience, and both turned their theories toward global issues later in their
careers (Bandura, 2008; Kelly, 1962).
One possible objection that constructivists
might have to this connection stems from the view that Bandura’s work
originated in a behavioral perspective. This could suggest a more sequential,
deterministic view of human undertakings incompatible with Kelly’s perspective.
However, Bandura’s career work (2005, 2006b) demonstrates that he has long
taken a more proactive view of human behavior as his theory has evolved into a
well elaborated model that he came to call Social Cognitive Theory (SCT),
differentiating his theory from other social learning approaches.
Fortuitously, I had the opportunity to ask
Bandura directly about his view of the compatibility of his and Kelly’s
perspectives (A. Bandura, personal communication, April 12, 2008). Bandura
expressed great respect for Kelly, his theory, and the daring foresight of his
perspective, and he stated that he saw “no incompatibility at the meta-level”
between their points of view. Bandura did express the importance of conducting
continuing research to work out the particular details of how to improve
self-efficacy, or, to use PCP terminology, to help people to implement
effective anticipatory processes.
Not wanting to take the risk of once again
devoting so much more coverage to Bandura’s ideas than Kelly’s (and further
risk rejection of the manuscript for publication), I shall now return to the
Personal Construct Perspective and attempt to address 1) how ideas and concepts
from SCT could contribute to the elaboration and application of PCP, 2) how PCP
concepts might contribute to the elaboration and application of SCT, and 3) the
synergy of the two perspectives within the larger context of contemporary
psychology and its future.
Might
SCT concepts contribute to the evolution of PCP?
I approach the question of how an
exploration of some components of Social Cognitive Theory’s emphasis on human
agency could enhance, inform, or extend Personal Construct Psychology from a
firm foundation of Kelly’s formal PCP theory, including the fundamental
postulate, emphasizing understanding a person’s psychological processes as
organized in terms of how that individual anticipates events, and the eleven
elaborative corollaries. I also place Kelly’s personal scientist metaphor
squarely at the center of this analysis. Finally, I would like to build on the
implications of Kelly’s ideas about the continuing evolution and effectiveness
of human life as stated in ‘Ontological Acceleration.’
From this foundation, it seems to me that
the process of facilitating human effectiveness from a PCP perspective, whether
in psychotherapy (what Kelly referred to as ‘the psychological reconstruction
of life’), education, industry, social action, or other realms, focuses on the
same fundamental processes. The psychologist wishes to help people to undertake
effective action in the pursuit of desirable outcomes by addressing their
values and goals, articulating their beliefs about the nature of relevant
phenomena, identifying the outcomes they wish to attain, constructing
appropriate strategies, skills, and actions necessary to furthering the goals,
monitoring the process as it occurs, addressing failure and setback, revising
original beliefs and strategies, and ultimately assessing whether the
anticipated outcome has been attained and what comes next.
Shotter (2007) described Kelly’s (and Don
Bannister’s) emphasis on the importance of “creating a psychology of human concern, a psychology that dealt
with issues that matter” (p.73, italics in original), and he articulated this
undeveloped or unfinished nature of the implications of Kelly’s work. He urged
us to focus on the consequences of human activity within the social context and
to assist people in changing their everyday practices by “inserting or
intertwining new reflective and critical practices into our already existing
daily practices” (p.74).
These activities, approached from fully
within the orthodox PCP perspective, could progress by consciously attending to
processes involved in clarifying intentions and desires; articulating elements
of forethought such as goal setting, foreseeing consequences, and creating courses
of action; motivating and regulating behavior, including addressing emotions as
well as cognition and action; and reflecting on and examining the effectiveness
of actions. We might also enhance human effectiveness by analyzing the relative
value of reliance on personal, proxy, and collective modes as ways of maximally
meeting anticipated outcomes. The emphasis on the individual’s perceived self
efficacy seems most specifically relevant to the PCP approach. We might
elaborate the application of the Kellian personal scientist methodology by
focusing directly on the various components of self-efficacy, assisting people
in assessing their skills and competency effectively, addressing reachable
goals, viewing failure in terms of effort and competencies rather than global
personal attributions or chance, and developing effective approaches to
learning from failure and persisting.
Might
PCP concepts contribute to the evolution of SCT?
I believe that PCP has much to offer to the
further elaboration and implementation of many aspects of the SCT approach to
human effectiveness. Bandura’s view of human agency emphasizes the
ever-evolving nature of the human undertaking and the necessity of effective
articulation of beliefs and understanding, setting appropriate goals and
directions, developing specific behavioral strategies, attending to outcomes
and consequences, revising strategies and beliefs, etc. Bandura emphasizes the
central importance of high perceived self-efficacy in human effectiveness. He
distinguishes between self-esteem, a global sense of self-worth, and self
efficacy, which addresses the specific likelihood of producing specific
outcomes through actions. Enhancing self-efficacy thus occurs through helping
the individual to practice more effective “personal science.” The processes of
building the elements of self-efficacy as described by Bandura map directly to
Kelly’s description of the parallels between his role as a graduate thesis
director and as a psychotherapist. In both roles, Kelly said,
I
would try to get him to pinpoint the issues, to observe, to become intimate
with the problem, to form hypotheses, to make test runs, to relate outcomes to
anticipations, to control his ventures so that he will know what led to what,
to generalize cautiously, and to revise his dogma in the light of experience (1979b, p. 61).
We can view each of these elements as
directly related to the process of building a sense of self-efficacy. Psychologists
working within the PCP perspective, building on Kelly’s example, have developed
a variety of methods and techniques relevant to these processes, including
various repertory grid methods, a variety of approaches to change and
reconstruction, and applications in education, organizations, social and
political contexts, and beyond (e.g., Fransella, 2003).
SYNERGY
AND ONTOLOGICAL ACCELERATION
I would like to conclude by addressing the
potential synergy between these two approaches in the context of some current
aspirations and issues within the Personal Construct Psychology community. Neimeyer
and Neimeyer discussed the flexibility and continuing advancement of Personal
Construct Psychology, stating that “… its capacity to enter into transformative
dialog with other streams of social and scientific discourse, strikes us as its
greatest strength” (2002, p. vii). Kelly often stated that human understanding
does not owe allegiance to any particular theory or interpretation, and that we
should use any methods or techniques that help us to further the process of
understanding our subject. Kelly applied his own philosophical assumption of
constructive alternativism to his theory, seeing it as a tentative and interim
way to view phenomena, recognizing that we should view all ideas as subject to
revision and replacement.
Kelly’s and Bandura’s similar views of the
active role of human beings in their continuing evolution emphasize the
importance of psychology’s participation in this on-going process of human
evolution. As Kelly put it, “Behavior is man’s independent variable in the
experiment of creating his own existence. . . . psychology’s greater task is to
join mankind in the exploration of what human behavior might be, and what would
happen if it were” (1979a, p. 36). This view supports the proposition that we
should focus on using our skills and ideas to further our knowledge and
understanding of the human situation and that working with convivial
perspectives can augment that process. Additionally, our interest in continuing
to enhance the recognition and acceptance of PCP within the wider discipline
could benefit in part from applying what we have to offer to other recognized
models, as well as specifically within the PCP perspective. By doing so,
perhaps we can further enhance the collective self-efficacy of the Personal Construct
Psychology community and participate even more fully in our continuing
contribution to the acceleration of human evolution.
| |
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
| Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S.
Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-82). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory
of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd Ed.) (pp. 154-196), New York: Guilford.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive
theory: an agentic perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52: 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of
human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European psychologist, 7:2-16.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social
cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.). Great minds in management (pp. 9-35). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bandura, A. (2006a). Toward a psychology of
human agency. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 1:164-180.
Bandura, A. (2006b). Autobiography. In M.G.
Lindzey & W. M. Rundam (Eds.), A
history of psychology in autobiography, Vol. IX, (pp. 42-75). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bandura, A. (2008, April). On
reducing pressing global problems by psychosocial means. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Western Psychological Association, Irvine, California.
Bandura, A. & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Fransella, F. (Ed.) (2003). International handbook of personal construct
psychology. Chichester: Wiley
Kelly, G. A. (1962). Europe's matrix of
decision. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation 1962 (pp. 83-123). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1979a). Ontological acceleration.
In B. Maher (Ed.). Clinical psychology
and personality: the selected papers of George Kelly (pp. 7-45). Huntington,
New York: Krieger.
Kelly, G. A. (1979b). The autobiography of
a theory. In B. Maher (Ed.). Clinical
psychology and personality: the selected papers of George Kelly (pp.
46-65). Huntington, New York: Krieger.
McWilliams, S. A. (1979, July). Emotional
expression and construct transition. Paper Presented at the 3rd
International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology, Breukelen, The Netherlands.
McWilliams, S. A. (1983, July). Construing
and nirvana. Paper presented at the 5th International Congress
on Personal Construct Psychology, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
Neimeyer, R. A., & Neimeyer, G. J.
(Eds.). (2002). Advances in personal
construct psychology: New directions and perspectives. Vol. 2, Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
Shotter, J. (2007). Revisiting George
Kelly: Social constructionism, social ecology, and social justice—all
unfinished projects. Personal Construct
Theory & Practice, 4: 68-83.
| |
|
|
|
|
ABOUT THE
AUTHOR
Spencer A. McWilliams, Ph.D. has held faculty and administrative appointments at six
American universities and colleges from 1971 to the present. He has sustained
an active interest and participation in PCP for more than thirty years. He
currently serves as Professor of Psychology at California State University San
Marcos, San Marcos, CA 92096, USA.
E-mail: smcwilli@csusm.edu. Home Page: http://www.csusm.edu/mcwilliams/
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
McWilliams, S. A. (2008). Ontological acceleration and human agency. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 60-67, 2008
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp08/mcwilliams08.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 27 November 2007 – Accepted: 16 April 2008 –
Published: 23 December 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|