|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE
CHANGE OF CONSTRUCTS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A THEORY OF CONSTRUCT
IMPLICATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dissertation
Presented
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University |
|
|
by |
|
|
Dennis
Neil Hinkle, B.A., M.A. |
|
|
The
Ohio State University 1965 |
|
|
|
|
| Editors' note
This document has
been scanned by Fay Fransella, Centre for Personal Construct Psychology at the
University of Hertfordshire and formatted by Simone Cheli at the Centre for
Research and Documentation, Institute of Constructivist Psychology, Padua,
Italy. Words
underlined in the original have been set in italics. Bibliographic references
are indicated by numbers in brackets, as in the original. The format of the
references has been left as in the original. Page numbers in the
Table of Contents have been replaced by links to the respective sections. The photos have been provided by Dennis Hinkle. | |
|
|
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The
author would like to acknowledge a profound sense of gratitude for the
inspiration provided by his adviser, Dr. George A. Kelly. By so doing,
the
author joins those legions which for decades will acknowledge their
indebtedness to this patient prophet.
The
many
fine hours of conversation with Dr. Don Bannister and Mr. Ralph Cebulla
and the
interest of Ed Moore and Jack Adams-Webber were much appreciated.
Finally,
it was my wife, Joyce, who made this experience possible.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION
Ockham's
razor is a sharp and bloody instrument. In the surgical excision of
complexity,
the user's unsteady hand all too often leaves the tissue of
oversimplification
as well as that of simplicity. In the meantime, human lives hang in the
balance
while “healers” debate the merits of their respective—and
respectable—microscopic perspectives. Dr. Don Bannister (Visiting
Professor,
The Ohio State University, Spring, 1965; personal communication)
recently made
the observation that in all other sciences except psychology, a
scientist's
explanation for a given phenomenon is considerably more complex than
the
layman's explanation for the same phenomenon. The continuation of a
rapacious
reductionism in psychological theorizing with its resulting psychology
of
minimal men will, however, be rejected as being an inferior explanation
by
laymen, who assuredly have the good sense and wisdom to do so. Prof.
George A.
Kelly's Psychology of Personal Constructs, however, has as its starting
point the
complex personal constructions of a man's outlook on the world. It also
has the
audacity of being self-reflexive; that is, it applies to psychologists
and
their psychologizing as well as to those who are psychologized. Its
focus of
convenience concerns a human being's anticipations
of the alternative
constructions of his life. It has as its psychotherapeutic goal constructive psychological movement. It
assumes that a man is not condemned by his past history. As such, it
aspires to
be “a psychology of the optimal man”—not the minimal man, but the
optimal
man,—man in the process of being
human (37).
The
explicitly stated model of Man from the viewpoint of personal construct
theory
is Man, the scientist—one who predicts, wagers, anticipates, expects,
and
implies, for the purpose of further predicting, wagering, anticipating,
expecting, and implying. The philosophy of constructive alternativism,
upon
which personal construct theory is based, says that the model of Man as
a scientist
is but one of the possible alternative constructions of Man. Personal
construct
theory, therefore, does not limit itself to the passing of judgments
about what
a man is, but rather it focuses on what a man is trying to be and the
process
of his becoming, that is, the process of constructive psychological
movement.
It
is the
process of the changing of personal constructs—reconstruction and
psychological
movement—that is the primary concern of this dissertation. The main
question
asked is “What determines the relative
resistance to change of personal constructs?” In addition to
some relevant
empirical findings with respect to this question, the following
contributions
are also offered:
1.
An initial formulation of a theory
of
construct implication. Briefly, this theory develops the idea
that construct
definition must involve a statement of the location of a construct
dimension in
the context of a hierarchical network of construct implications. Here,
“implication,”
“prediction,” “anticipation,” and “expectation” are regarded as being
synonymous terms. The theory will offer some tentative definitions of
personal construct
theory terms from the viewpoint of an implicative network of construct
relations. From this viewpoint, constructs will be regarded as having
only one
characteristic, quality, or property; namely, a construct has differential implications in a given
hierarchical
context.
2.
Construct implication methodology.
This
research concerns itself with the relative
resistance to change of personal constructs in a hierarchical context from the viewpoint
of a theory of construct implications.
The following
three methodologies will be presented;
a. The
hierarchical method for the
elicitation of superordinate constructs. This
was developed to test several hypotheses about the hierarchical level
of
superordination of constructs.
b. The
relative resistance to slot
change grid. Since the resistance to change of
personal constructs is to be the major dependent variable of the study,
this
technique represents the procedure that operationally defines this
variable.
c.The
implication grid.
This procedure presents, in systematic form, the network of
implications that
relate a set of constructs in a given hierarchical context. Much will
be said
of it later.
3.
Questions and suggestions for
further
research. The general approach of this investigation has
raised a host of
theoretical, methodological, and empirical questions. Hopefully, the
reader
will find these to be the most significant “results” of this
dissertation.
CHAPTER
II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In
view
of the intentions of this research as set forth in the first chapter,
this
review will be limited to those studies conducted within the context of
personal construct theory which relate to the general area of construct
change.
The dissertations of Landfield (40) and Levy (46) provide relevant
reviews from
other orientations. Levy, for example, includes research from
information
theory, experimental extinction, discrimination learning, intolerance
of ambiguity,
and rigidity. The body of personal construct theory research was
reviewed and
relevant studies were selected with the following two criteria in mind:
(1) The
constructs investigated or utilized in the research should be
theoretically
related to construct change. (2) The research should be capable of
being
interpreted in the light of a theory of the network of construct
implications
and should be suggestive of further research along these lines.
Several
of the various measures derived from the grid form of the Rep Test
which relate
to reconstruction are measures of constellatoriness, permeability, and
propositionality. Bennion (2) and Levy (46) were concerned with the
effects of
invalidation on propositional and constellatory constructs. They
operationally
defined constellatory constructs as those which were significantly
loaded on the
general factor of a conventional analysis of the Repgrid. Flynn (7)
investigated construct constellatoriness and cognitive complexity as
related to
role variability. He used the explanatory power of the first construct factor as a measure of
cognitive complexity and defined the degree of constellatory structure
as the
explanatory power of the first figure
factor on a Repgrid modification. He found that role variability was
significantly related to construct constellatoriness, but not to
cognitive
complexity.
In
terms
of a theory of construct implication, constellatoriness refers to the
relation
between a given construct and others such that a polar position on the
given
construct implies polar positions on the other constructs.
Pre-emptiveness,
from this frame of reference, means that a position on the given
construct
implies those poles of the other constructs upon which an element is
not to be located,
either because the element is outside the range of convenience of the
other
construct, or because the element is to be located on the opposite pole
of the
other construct, i.e., a prior constellatory relationship, e.g.,
“Psychologists
are useful, not hyperbolic, and not illiterate.” What we mean by the degree of constellatoriness or
pre-emptiveness presents an interesting question. The contrast of
constellatoriness and pre-emptiveness would seem to be
propositionality;
however, these terms can perhaps more usefully be seen as the extremes
of a
continuum which delineates the degree of certainty—expressed as a
probability
function—as to the utility of
implying,
or pre-emptively not implying,
certain construct relationships in terms of the principle of maximizing
the
total number of construct implications within the personal construct
system.
Propositional thinking thus implies a suspension of judgment (i.e., a
superordinate construction) as to the implicative gain of each of the
alternative patterns of construction under consideration.
Constellatoriness and
pre-emptiveness indicate an expectation of high probability that
certain
patterns of construction will increase the total implicativeness of the
system
more than others. Propositionality, constellatoriness, and
pre-emptiveness are thus
not seen as a quality of a single construct, but
rather, as the probabilistic superordinate anticipation of the total
implicative gain that would result if two or more construct dimensions
were
placed in an implicative relationship to one another. It is a
superordinate statement
about the probable utility of a given implicative network. When defined
in this
manner, a construct network may be either propositional or
constellatory. The
Repgrid definitions of constellatoriness used by Bennion, Levy and
Flynn are
based on the principle of frequency
of conjunction; thus, if a wide variety of objects were to be entered
on the
Repgrid as figures, and constructs of color, shape, height, weight, and
hardness were elicited, and if most of the objects were construed as
heavy,
hard, short, chartreuse, parallelepipedons, then, by the principle of
frequent
conjunction, these constructs would be said to be constellatory. In
this
example constellatoriness is clearly a function of the population
sample. To say,
therefore, that these particular constructs imply
one another is a most tenuous assumption—although not an altogether
unreasonable one. In view of this, the Implication grid technique
developed in this
dissertation provides a promising means of exploring the general
problem of
constellatoriness and propositionality of personal constructs.
The
constructs of permeability and range of convenience are theoretically
related
to construct change. Binner (4) and Gettesman (8) allowed people to
mark a zero
on the Repgrid if neither construct nor contrast could be applied on a
figure,
and used this as a measure of permeability-impermeability. Hess (10)
used the
same operation as a measure of the range of convenience of the
constructs. This
suggests that perhaps it would be more useful to define a permeable
construct
as one whose range of convenience is relatively unexplored. Once its
range of
convenience has been fully elaborated and clarified, it becomes
impermeable.
According to the theory of the present research, the convenience—or
inconvenience—of relating constructs is a function of the effects such
a
relation would have on the respective implicative networks of each of
the
constructs. For example, if I combine a geometrical and a zoological
construct
and come up with a parabolic toad—the offspring of an exponential
mother and a hyperbolic
father—then my
problem in assessing the implicative utility of such a union consists
of
finding points of compatible implications. What does the meaning of
toads say
about the meaning of parabolas, and vice versa? By contrast, where are
the
points of compatible similarity between the implications of the
constructs of
roundness and billiard balls? Or cubical billiard balls? Or
compassionate
psychological research?
The
meaning of this toad fetish for the present investigation is somewhat
obscure,
so let us return to the citing of scripture. The studies of Isaacson
(13) and
Cromwell and Caldwell (6) reported that ratings on personal constructs
were
significantly more extreme than on provided constructs. These results
could be
predicted from a theory of construct implications if the differential
implications of personal constructs is shown to be significantly
greater than
the implications of provided constructs. That is to say, it would be
more important
to resolve constructional ambivalence on constructs of high implicative
significance—due to the greater threat potential of
misconstruction—than on
constructs of low significance.
Resnick
and Landfield (54) in their investigation of the Dichotomy Corollary
distinguished between logical dichotomous constructs (e.g.,
mature-immature)
and peculiar dichotomous constructs (e.g., intelligent-bad). This
suggests that
peculiar dichotomous constructs represent a highly constellatory
relationship
between two constructs (e.g., intelligent-stupid and good-bad). A way
of
testing to see whether peculiar constructs represent a relationship of
two construct
dimensions would be to ask the subject whether all events which are
described
by the negation of one pole of the construct must necessarily be
described by
the opposite pole of that construct.
Validation,
invalidation, range of convenience, type and length of social
interaction,
focus of attention of the construer, perceived self-movement,
constellatoriness,
propositionality, and hostility are dimensions which have been utilized
in the
various investigations of the Experience Corollary. This corollary
stated that
a person's construction system varies as he successively construes the
replications of events. These investigations are, therefore, relevant
to the general
problems of construct change.
Bieri
(3)
and Lundy (48) assessed the effects of social interaction on
construction. In a
later study Lundy (49) specified other dimensions determining the
direction of
change in interpersonal perception. He demonstrated a relationship
between incorporation and differentiation (focus of attention upon
one self or upon another person)
and the notions of assimilative
projection and differential accuracy. It may be that these
studies were
pinning down some of the possible superordinate constructions about the
process
of construing another, e.g., “He is like me; unlike me. How do I see
him; how
does he see me; how does he see himself; how do I see my relationship
to him;
how does he see it; how does he see the way I see our relationship—or
myself—or
him, etc.?”
Poch
(53)
investigated the shift change of constructs (change from one dimension
to
another) and found that such change was greater for invalidated
constructs than
for validated ones. Newman (51) measured construct change by the amount
of
element (Repgrid figures) switching on various construct dimensions.
Among
other things, he found that change—defined in this way—was more likely
following invalidation on those constructs along which one perceives
himself to
be moving in time than on the stable self-constructs. Using the
implication
grid technique, one would expect to find that the selfmovement
constructs would
imply significantly fewer changes on other constructs under conditions
of slot
change than would be the case with the stable self constructs. The
general
hypothesis here is that change of subordinate implications (element
switching)
is facilitated by stabilizing the superordinate implications of a
construct.
For example, it would be more threatening to say to a beginning
therapist, “You
don't understand what your patient is trying to tell you” than it would
be to
say “You show signs of making a fine and sensitive clinician, but right
now you
don't understand what your patient is trying to tell you.” This seems
to be an
important principle which needs to be experimentally demonstrated.
In
addition to the above-mentioned threat interpretation of Newman's
study, it is
also likely that the stable self constructs are those along which
movement is
limited by the absence of an elaborated alternative, i.e., anxiety.
Thus,
movement on stable self constructs may be limited by either extensive
implicative invalidation—threat—or the absence of an elaborated
alternative—anxiety.
The converse should also be true for the self-movement constructs.
The
general principle of maximizing the total number of implications within
a
construct system can also be related to the studies of Bieri (3) and
Lemcke
(45). The Bieri generalization gradient—also supported by Lemcke's
dissertation—indicates that the generalization of construct change does
not
follow the classical generalization gradient as found in conditioning
studies.
Invalidation of a construct tends to stabilize those constructs which
are most
similar to it. This effect could be accounted for by a theory of
construct
implications if it is shown that the similarity of constructs is
directly
related to the degree of interrelatedness of their implicative
networks. Thus, when
invalidation of a construct threatens an implicative network with
invalidation,
stabilization of similar constructs will function to preserve the
implicative
utility of the threatened network to which they are related. For
example, if
being either a productive researcher or an efficient therapist implies
one's
usefulness as a psychologist, then invalidation of one of these
criteria will
probably lead a person to initiate a stabilizing strategy with respect
to the
other in order to maintain the conception of himself as being a useful
psychologist. Is not this strategy reflected in the profession today?
The relationship
of these hypotheses to research in the field of cognitive dissonance is
probably clear enough to require no elaboration. The implication grid
provides
a promising means for testing these notions.
The
paper
by Howard and Kelly (12)—based on Howard's dissertation (11)—argued
that
changes in a person's behavior must follow his construing of the
change. This
follows from the Fundamental Postulate of personal construct theory. In
terms
of implications, this says that a person cannot move along meaningless
dimensions and that he therefore cannot behave meaninglessly.
The
previously cited work of Levy (47) reported that after high
invalidation
reconstruction was greater on constellatory constructs (defined by high
loading
on the first Rep test factor), and that with increasing invalidation
the
increase of change for constellatory constructs was greater than the
increase
of change for the propositional ones. He also hypothesized that under
conditions of low invalidation change of propositional constructs would
be
greater than change of constellatory constructs. The results were in
the
predicted direction, but did not reach significance. Bennion (2) was
also interested
in this same problem. Interestingly, he found consistent individual
differences
in that some subjects resisted change on constellatory constructs,
while others
resisted change on propositional ones. While Landfield (40, 41, 42, 4)
was
concerned with a movement interpretation of threat rather than the
constellatory problem, his work—along with the research of Levy and
Bennion—can
be interpreted in light of construct implications. From this frame of
reference,
psychological movement—construct change—will be resisted when such a
change is
anticipated as leading to an imminent comprehensive reduction of the
total
number of predictive implications of the personal construct system
(threat), or
as creating a relative absence of predictive implications relating to
the
events with which one is confronted (anxiety). Stated in its
non-defensive
form, this is the corollary that a person always changes in that
direction
which he anticipates will maximize the total number of predictive
implications in
his system. This can be accomplished by either the expansion or
clarification
(definition) of his system, or both. Landfield, among other things,
found that
a person tends to perceive as threatening those people who are as he
was in the
past but no longer wishes to be and who expect him to be as he was in
the past
but no longer wishes to be, and that the individual will perceive
himself as
being less predictable to himself in social relationships involving
threatening
acquaintances than in those involving non-threatening acquaintances.
This
suggests an inferential incompatibility between a rejected past self
construction and a person's present or future construction of himself,
such
that acceptance of the past construction is anticipated to create a
reduction
or absence of predictive implications.
It
is
also assumed that when a construct subsystem is validated, invalidated,
or
found that its range of convenience does not cover the events in
question, then
this same determination can also be applied to those superordinate
constructs
which governed the process of constructing the subsystem in question.
Constellatoriness and propositionality are regarded as being one class
of such
superordinate constructions, and not as qualities of particular
construct dimensions.
The constructions which determine the process of construing for various
people
constitute a vital research area. It is hoped that modifications of the
implication grid will be useful in these areas.
Finally,
with reference to Landfield's paper (43) on the closeness of
opposites—reaction
formation, extreme behavioral transformation, etc., as considered from
the
point of view of personal construct theory, the above elaborated
implication
hypotheses would lead one to predict that behavioral transformation
(slot
movement) would occur only on those constructs which have well
elaborated
networks of implications for both poles of the construct. Indexing the
implications of each pole of constructs will facilitate differential
predictions with respect to the direction and ease of psychological
reconstruction.
CHAPTER
III
A FORMAL THEORY OF CONSTRUCT IMPLICATION AND
CHANGE
This
chapter presents the background and initial formulation of a theory of
construct implications, defines various corollaries and terms, and
finally
applies the formulation to the problem of construct change.
Background
and initial formulation
This
theory of construct implication arose in response to three
observations. The
first concerned the visual representation of construct subsystems.
Kelly
represents a construct as a straight line with a dot or small circle at
each
end. A subsystem consists of an unconnected cluster of such
representations at
various angles to one another in space. Perhaps due to an electronics
background, I had tended to visualize subsystems in terms of three
dimensional
binary interconnected circuits and drew them in the form of three
dimensional
genealogical tables. The second issue concerned the conceptualization
of
constellatoriness and propositionality. Kelly (15, p. 155) writes “A
construct which
permits its elements to belong to other realms concurrently, but fixes
their
realm membership, may be called a constellatory construct” and “A
construct
which leaves its elements open to construction in all other respects
may be
called a propositional construct.” The degree of constellatoriness of a
construct seemed to me—by analogy—to
be something akin to the strength of a magnetic field eminating from
each pole
of a construct. The greater a pole's field strength, the greater the
number of
constructs which clustered around it. Also by analogy, the looseness
and
tightness of constructs seemed to have something to do with the
elasticity of
the line which separated the poles. The third issue dealt with
construct
definition. A superordinate construct “is one which includes another as
one of
the elements in its context”; a subordinate construct “is one which is
included
as an element in the context of another” (Kelly, p. 532). With the
exception of
the constructs at the top and bottom of a hierarchy, all other
constructs are
both superordinate and subordinate. Also, if a construct can be loose
or tight,
permeable or impermeable, propositional or constellatory from time to
time,
what then defines a construct? This constitutes the essential point of
departure for this dissertation.
For
Kelly, propositionallty, pre-emptiveness, constellatoriness, looseness,
tightness, permeability, impermeability, etc., are qualities or
properties of a
given construct. The only unchangeable quality of a construct is its
dichotomous nature. Now, what if we accept the Dichotomy Corollary, but
reject
these other notions as being construct qualities, how then can they be
usefully
defined? This will be discussed shortly.
According
to Construct Theory, the function of a construct is anticipation. The
Choice
Corollary indicates that we anticipate events (e.g., other constructs)
in order
to expand or clarify our system of anticipations. Thus, construct
theory
assumes that a person always chooses those constructions which he
anticipates
will maximize the total number of anticipations within his personal
construct system.
The Fundamental Postulate indicates that a person's system of
anticipations
psychologically channelizes his anticipatory processes—his construing.
The
epistemological basis of this theory implies that constructs always
anticipate
or subsume other constructs, not things-in-themselves. Thus, the theory
being
formulated focuses on construct anticipations.
In
the
present theory, the term “implication” has been substituted for
“anticipation.”
A polar position on a given dichotomous construct implies polar
positions on
certain constructs, and this polar position may, in turn, also be
implied by
polar positions on other constructs. The construct positions which a
given
construct implies are called the superordinate implications of that
construct; when the polar positions on the given construct are implied by positions on other
constructs—either singularly or in combination (disjunction or
conjunction)—these construct relationships are called the subordinate implications of the given
construct. It follows that
the definition (clarification) of a construct would require a statement
of both
the subordinate and superordinate implications of each of its poles.
Such a
definition—in context—is called the range
of implication of that construct. It is the sum of the
subordinate and superordinate
ranges of implication. The total number of implications in the range of
implication of a construct could be used as a measure of the
meaningfulness of
that construct. The subordinate range of implication provides a measure
of the level of superordination of
a construct.
The range of convenience of a construct (Kelly, p. 137) covers all
those
contexts in which the user found its application useful. In contrast,
the range
of implication of a construct is an index of the extensiveness of its
subordinate and superordinate network of implications in a given
context. It
would thus be possible to investigate the ranges (plural) of
implication for a
given construct in various contexts.
Let
us
now turn our attention briefly to the various forms of implication
between two
constructs; for example, construct A-B and construct X-Y. A wide
variety of
specific implicative combinations are possible, but four commonly
observed
patterns are the parallel, orthogonal, reciprocal, and ambiguous forms,
which
are described as follows:
1.
Parallel; A implies X
and B implies Y.
(e.g., love-hate; pleasantness-unpleasantness).
2.
Orthogonal; A implies X,
but B does not
imply Y; also A implies X and B implies X, but neither implies Y,
(e.g.,
employed-unemployed; has income-has no income). Also, good-bad;
evaluative-objective).
3.
Reciprocal; A implies X
and B implies Y
and X implies A and Y implies B. (e.g., nervous-calm; tense-relaxed).
This kind
of a relationship suggests a functional equivalence of the construct
labels. The
significance of reciprocal implications in terms of a factor analysis
of the
implication grid will be discussed in Chapter VI.
4.
Ambiguous; A and B imply X,
and B implies Y;
also A implies X and B implies X and Y. One subject, for example, when
relating
desirable-undesirable and realism-idealism, said that realism and
idealism both
implied desirable and undesirable aspects for him. Conflict theory and
double-bind theory relate to these implicative
dilemmas. Such situations seem to result from (1) an
incomplete abstraction
of the differences between the contexts in which the construct was
used; or (2)
in the case of the example above—the subject used one construct label
for two
independent constructs, e.g., realismidealism in the sense of testing
ideas—not
testing ideas and realismidealism in the sense of not having
goals-having
goals. When clarified, the subject could then relate each of these
usages of
realismidealism to desirable-undesirable in the unambiguous parallel
form. In
this sense psychological movement, conflict resolution, and insight
depend on
the locating of such points of ambiguous implication and the resolving
of them
into parallel or orthogonal forms.
The
logical combinations of poles, number of implications, and direction of
implications suggest other forms, but this will suffice to indicate the
territory opening up for this aspect of construct theory research.
Corollaries
So
far we
have said that constructs are dichotomus, i.e., have differential
implications,
and each pole has a subordinate and superordinate range of implication
of the
various forms described in a given context of usage. The range of
convenience
of a construct refers to the number of contexts in which it has been
found to
be useful. It is essential to maintain the distinction between the
symbol of a
construct (verbal labels, etc.) and the construct itself in a given
context. The
indexing of the range of implications is regarded as a necessary
feature of
construct definition. In view of these notions, let us now review
several of
the eleven basic corollaries of personal construct theory (Kelly, p.
103).
1.
Organization Corollary:
“Each person
characteristically evolves, for his convenience in anticipating events,
a
construction system embracing ordinal relationships between
constructs.” This says
that construct implication is typically unidirectional, e.g. A implies
X, but X
does not imply A. Constructs will therefore vary with respect to the
number of
constructs implying them and the number of constructs which they imply.
It
should be noted that constructs may be used either conjunctively or
disjunctively to imply a polar position on a given construct, e.g., A
and B
together imply X, but neither A nor B alone implies X; and either A, or
B, or
both, imply X.
2.
Range Corollary: “A
construct is
convenient for the anticipation of a finite range of events only.” That
is,
polar positions on a given construct are implied by a finite number of
polar
positions on other constructs. This has been called its subordinate
ranges of implication.
The superordinate ranges of implication of a construct are similarly
restricted.
3.
Choice Corollary: “A
person chooses for
himself that alternative in a dichotomized construct through which he
anticipates the greater possibility for extension and definition of his
system.” Since either extension or definition results in an increased
number of
implications, the Corollary can be reworded to state that a person
chooses for
himself that alternative in a dichotomized construct through which he
anticipates the greater possibility for increasing the total number of
implications of his system. That is to say, a person always chooses in
that
direction which he anticipates will increase the total meaning and
significance
of his life. Stated in the defensive form, a person chooses so as to
avoid the
anxiety of chaos and the despair of absolute certainty. This corollary
of
maximizing the total number of predictive implications in one's
personal
implicative network provides the theoretical basis for the present
dissertation.
4.
Fragmentation Corollary:
“A person may
successively employ a variety of construct subsystems which are
inferentially
incompatible with each other.” In view of the Choice Corollary
discussed above,
this suggests that inferential incompatibilities will be resolved only
when
such a resolution is anticipated to maximize the total implicativeness
of the
personal construct system. This highlights the vital importance of the
personal
constructions about the process of construing for the general problem
of
construct change.
5.
Modulation Corollary:
“The variation in
a person's construction system is limited by the permeability of the
constructs
within whose range of convenience the variants lie.” A construct is
permeable “if
it will admit to its range of convenience new elements which are not
yet
construed within its framework.” (Kelly, p. 79) Thus, permeability—“the
capacity to embrace new elements” (Kelly, p. 80)—represents the yet
unexplored
range of convenience of a construct. From the viewpoint of construct
implications permeability is equivalent to inferential compatibility.
Thus, the
variation in a person's construction system is limited by the
inferential
compatibility between the variants and those constructs within whose
range of convenience
the variants lie. (The variation is also limited in accord with the
principle
of maximizing the total implicativeness of the construct system.)
Terms
This
initial formulation of a theory of construct implication also suggests
a number
of tentative definitions of various other personal construct theory
terms:
1.
A construct. Earlier we
indicated that
construct definition should include a statement of the subordinate and
superordinate implications of the construct. The problem here is how
much can
these implications change from context to context before the identity
of the construct
is lost? Essentially, a construct is a specific basis for differential
anticipations or responses. Since a given construct symbol may
represent a
variety of specific bases (constructs), it is important that a
construct and
its symbol not be equated. For example, what a person considers to be
“honest”
in the context of criminals may be vastly different from “honest” in
the
context of intimate friends. Since the subordinate and superordinate
implications of “honest-dishonest” could be expected to differ widely
between
these two contexts, in what sense could we say that the same construct
is being
used in each situation? The trans-contextual identity of a construct
can
perhaps be defined as the points of identical subordinate and
superordinate
implications. For example, if in context X, A, B, and C imply honesty,
and
honesty implies 1,2, and 3 while in context Y, A, D, and E imply
honesty, and
honesty implies 1, 4 and 5, then the trans-contextual identity of
honesty
consists of A and 1. This definition is definitely a tentative one.
2.
Looseness-tightness.
This refers to the
variability of the predictions made from a construct. A loose construct
can be
defined as one whose superordinate implications, or subordinate
implications, or
both, vary from context to context, e.g., its classification criteria
and/or
its significance may vary. Notice that it is possible to loosen or
tighten
independently either the superordinate implications or the subordinate
implications, as well as to loosen or tighten both. Thus, it is
possible for a
person to be loose about what constructs imply one's position on a
given
construct and tight about what that position implies—or vice versa—or
both.
Defined in this way looseness-tightness describes the extent of
variability or
construct relationships and not qualities of a particular construct.
This
definition is also tentative and needs refinement—especially in terms
of the
limits that inferential compatibility places on loosening and
tightening and
the maintenance of the trans-contextual identity of constructs.
3.
Subordinate and superordinate
constructs.
In an implicative relationship between two constructs that construct
which
implies polar positions on the other construct is called the
subordinate
construct; that construct whose polar positions are implied by the
other
construct is called the superordinate construct.
4.
Core and peripheral constructs.
This
distinction separates constructs according to the net loss of the total
number
of implications 24 which would result if the construct dimension were
to be
removed from the construct system. Peripheral constructs are those
whose elimination—or addition—would not appreciably alter the implicative utility of the
system.
5.
Permeability-impermeability.
The
permeability of a construct refers to the number of new constructs with
which
it is found to be inferentially compatible. In this sense, it is the
yet
unexplored range of convenience of a construct.
6.
Propositionality,
constellatoriness and
pre-emptiveness. This has been previously discussed at
greater length in
Chapter II. With respect to the principle of maximizing the total
significance
of the construct system, these terms refer to the degree of certainty
one has
about the implicative utility of relating (or not relating—in the
pre-emptive
case) certain construct dimensions. As such, they are superordinate
constructs
about various construct networks and not qualities of particular
constructs.
Propositional thinking means that one has suspended judgment about the
ultimate
significance of the various construct patterns under consideration.
Constellatoriness and pre-emptiveness mean that such a judgment has
been
rendered. One may frequently relate certain construct dimensions either
because
one is certain of the utility of the particular relationship, or
because no alternative
relationships have yet been envisioned.
7.
Anxiety. Anxiety is the
awareness of the
relative absence of implications with respect to the constructs with
which one
is confronted.
8.
Threat. Threat can be
seen as the awareness
(e.g., a superordinate construction and anticipation about the
construct
system) of an imminent comprehensive reduction of the total number of
predictive implications of the personal construct system. Landfield
(40), for example,
using a content approach to threat, found—among other things—that the
possibility of accepting a rejected past self construction was
threatening. The
acceptance of a rejected past self construction would not leave a
person
without predictive implications, but—presumably—the person anticipates
that the
acceptance of the rejected construction would result in a net reduction
of the
total number of predictive implications as compared with his present
implicative network due to the inferential incompatibilities between
the past and
present self constructions. Threat, then, is the anticipation of a net
implicative loss. (In addition, the construction of one's construct
system as
either having suffered a substantial, unalterable implicative loss, or
as being
no longer expandable, might provide a useful basis for a theory of
depression.)
The initial
formulation of a theory of construct
change
Within
the general context of personal construct change, three types of change
can be
delineated. Shift change refers to
a
change from one construct dimension to another, e.g., viewing a person
along a mature-immature
dimension, then shifting to an honest-dishonest dimension. The change
from one
alternative of a dichotomus construct to the other alternative is
called slot change, e.g., viewing a
person as
mature, then regarding him as immature. Scalar
change is a slot change in the magnitude used to describe a
construct
alternative, e.g., less mature and more mature in contrast to immature. The
focus of convenience of this dissertation concerns the slot change of
personal constructs.
From
the
viewpoint of construct implications, the Choice Corollary says that a
person
chooses for himself that alternative in a dichotomized construct
through which
he anticipates the greater possibility for increasing the total number
of
implications of his system. Thus, a person would resist movement in the
direction of reduced implicativeness (threat) or the relative absence
of
implications (anxiety). The Modulation Corollary indicates that the
variation
in a person's construction system is limited by the inferential
compatibility
between the variants and those constructs within whose range of
convenience the
variants lie. It follows, then, that slot movement would be more likely
to
occur on those constructs that have a similar number of implications
for each
pole and for which each set is equally compatible with the rest of the
construct system than would be the case for constructs of a markedly
unequal
number of polar implications, or constructs for which the acceptance of
one of
the sets of polar implications would lead to extensive inferential
incompatibilities in terms of the rest of the system. Also, slot
movement is
more probable on constructs of few polar implications, because the
anticipated
threat and anxiety would be correspondingly less.
The
Organization Corollary says that construct implication is typically
unidirectional, that is, constructs on one level imply the polar
positions of
constructs at the next level and these constructs in turn imply polar
positions
on constructs at a still higher level, and so on, so as to form
construct
hierarchies. The higher up the hierarchy a construct is located, the
greater
will be the number of implications in its subordinate range of
implications,
e.g., the more constructs that will be needed to define its polar
positions.
Thus, if one knows his polar position on a construct functioning at a
high level
of superordination, then he can also probably anticipate his polar
positions on
the wide variety of subordinate constructs which imply that position.
That is,
the polar positions of a superordinate construct can be used to monitor
probabilistically the polar positions of constructs within its
subordinate
range of implication. Since the polar positions of constructs operating
at a
high level of supeordination should have a broader range of
implication, it is
expected that they will also show a greater resistance to slot change
than
constructs functioning at a low level on the hierarchy. This is
predicted,
because the degrees of threat and anxiety are assumed to be a function
of the number
of implications available.
The
relative resistance to slot change of personal constructs is the major
dependent variable of the study discussed in the following chapters.
This will
be related to the polar implications of constructs and their
hierarchical
level. In addition to a number of issues which will be discussed
subsequently,
this study provides a test of the utility of a number of formulations
which
have been presented in this chapter, particularly the Choice Corollary.
CHAPTER
IV
PROCEDURE, INSTRUMENTS, SCORING, AND SPECIFIC
EXPERIMENTAL
PREDICTIONS
Introduction
and general hypotheses
The
purpose of this study was threefold: Primarily, it attempted to develop
a
methodology whereby a person could communicate aspects of his networks
of
construct implications in a standardized and systematic fashion.
Hopefully,
these systematic representations would then provide a fertile basis for
the
generation of a number of hypotheses for further research exploration.
Secondly, the study would provide the information necessary for an
internal
analysis of the characteristics of the implication grid methodology
itself. As
it turned out, many of the important characteristics of the implication
grid
had not been realized until after the data had been collected. Finally,
specific predictions about the change of personal constructs—which had
been
derived from the theory of construct implications—would be tested. This
would provide
a demonstration of the utility of the theory and associated
methodology.
The
four
general hypotheses which were derived from construct implication theory
and
investigated in this study are as follows:
1.
The
relative resistance to slot change of personal constructs will be
directly
related to the superordinate range of implications of those constructs.
This is
based on the principle of maximizing the total implicativeness of the
system
and the notion that the anticipated degree of threat will be a direct
function
of the number of implications involved in the change.
2.
Constructs functioning at a higher level of superordination in a
hierarchical
context will have a larger superordinate range of implications than
constructs
functioning at a low level. This would not be predicted for constructs
functioning at the highest level of
superordination
in a hierarchy.
3.
Constructs functioning at a higher level of superordination in a
hierarchical
context will have a larger subordinate range of implications than
constructs
functioning at a low level.
4.
Constructs functioning at a higher level of superordination in a
hierarchical
context will show a greater relative resistance to slot change than
constructs
functioning at a low level. (This hypothesis assumes the validity of
hypothesis
2, above.)
Although
the data permit the testing of a number of additional hypotheses (to be
elaborated in Chapter VI), these were the ones of principal interest in
this
initial investigation of construct implication. The exact operational
definitions of these hypotheses will be presented following a
discussion of the
general procedure, instruments, and scoring methods.
Subjects
The
subjects of this experiment were undergraduate students taking
Psychology 401,
an introductory psychology course. As part of the course requirements,
each
student was required to participate as a subject in four hours of
psychological
experimentation. The signup sheet for this study stated simply that it
was a
four hour extensive personality interview; that the results were
completely
confidential; and that each subject would have an opportunity to have
the
mathematical analysis of his interview explained if he requested it. A
total of
28 people participated in the experiment—11 males and 17 females. The
mean age
was 20 years with a range from 18 to 31. Most of the subjects were in
their
freshman or sophomore year in college.
Procedure
1.
The introduction. When a
subject
appeared for his “personality interview” he was told that we were
interested in
having him explain himself to us in a particular fashion which could
later be mathematically
analyzed. The results of the interview would be explained to him later
if he
wished and they were completely confidential. He would be free to leave
with
the full four hours of experimental credit as soon as he completed the
interview. (The average running time per subject was actually just
under 3
hours.) The subject was informed that 5 minute breaks would be taken
after each
major section of the interview, and that breaks could be taken at any
time the
subject requested them.
2.
Elicitation of figures.
The subject was
then asked to give the first names of nine people who currently played
an
important role in his life and whom he knew well. Parents, siblings
nearest the
subject in age, boy friends, girl friends, employer, and roommates were
suggested as possible figures. The only restrictions placed on the
selection of
figures were that the subject must have known the person for at least 6
months
and must regard the person as currently playing an important part in
his life.
3.
Elicitation of the ten subordinate
constructs. Since the hierarchical context used in this study
was to be the
subject's construction of himself as he would prefer to be, triads were
generated utilizing all nine of the elicited figures and the subject
himself as
one of the elements in every triad. Using the subject as an element in
each
triad assures that the elicited constructs will be self relevant. In
order to
generate the first subordinate construct the subject is told, “We are
interested in understanding you and these people who play an important
part in
your life. Now think about these three people for a moment: Yourself,
(person's
name), and (person's name). Is there some important way in which any
two of
these people are alike in contrast to the third?” The process is
repeated nine
more times using new triads in each case. After the subject generates
his first
construct, he is asked not to repeat any construct which he has
previously
given; that is, he is asked in effect to generate ten constructs which
for him
are clearly different from one
another. When he has generated ten constructs using himself and all
nine of the
figures, he is then asked to read over the list in order to assure that
none of
the constructs is merely a rewording of some other listed construct.
If, after
this, some of the constructs appear to be similar to the experimenter,
the
experimenter then asks the subject to explain the differences between
the
particular constructs in question. When both the subject and the
experimenter are
satisfied that the ten elicited constructs are clearly different from
one
another, then they proceed to the next step.
4.
Side preference of the
subordinate
constructs. The subject is now asked to indicate which side
of each
construct dimension is clearly descriptive of the kind of person he
prefers to
be. It is indicated that he is not being asked which side describes him
now, but
rather which side describes his preferred self-construction.
Occasionally a
construct will have no clear side preferences (i.e., both sides
preferred or
neither side preferred); in this case, new constructs are generated
from the
triads until the criteria of step 3 above, and this step are satisfied.
This
requirement of a clear side preference is made in order to assure that
the
constructs will have clearly differential implications. These ten
constructs
are entered in the implication grid as constructs 1 through 10 and
constitute the
subordinate constructs of the preferred self-construction hierarchy.
5.
The hierarchical technique for
eliciting the
superordinate constructs of the preferred self hierarchy. The
subject is
now asked to construe the superordinate implications of his subordinate
constructs.
His first subordinate construct is selected and he is instructed as
follows:
“Now
on
this construct you preferred this side to that side. What I want to
understand
now is why you would prefer to be here rather than there (pointing).
What are
the advantages of this side in contrast to the disadvantages of that
side, as
you see it?” The subject will now generate a construct dimension which
has a
preferred side. (Subject 4, for example, said that he preferred to be
reserved in
contrast to emotional, because being reserved implied being relaxed
while
emotional implied being nervous; thus relaxed-nervous is his first
superordinate construct in the preferred self hierarchy.) The subject
is
stopped and the same question above is asked of the construct which he
just
generated. (Subject 8 replied that being relaxed implied a better
performance,
while nervous implied a poorer performance; thus better
performance-poorer
performance is his second superordinate construct.) The subject will
again
generate a construct with a clearly preferred side. The same question
is now
asked of this construct. The
process
is continued until (1) the subject can no longer generate a construct
dimension
or (2) until he has generated ten such superordinate constructs which
he
regards as being clearly different, though related, from one another
and for
which he has indicated a clear side preference. If he reaches the top
of his hierarchy
before he generates ten different constructs as he sees them, then the
second
subordinate construct is selected and the process repeated until the
ten
superordinate constructs have been elicited.
Earlier
pilot work showed that people can typically generate about 8 to 12 such
superordinate constructs (using subordinate constructs elicited as
described)
before reaching the top of the hierarchy. In the pilot work, the
complete
hierarchies for each of the ten subordinates were elicited. While this
was most
interesting information, it was time consuming to obtain. Fortunately
it was
found—as is theoretically expected in construct theory—that the chain of
superordinate
constructs in the hierarchy generated from the first subordinate was
almost
invariably repeated in the hierarchies of the remaining subordinates.
That is
to say, we were tapping into the general construct hierarchy about
one's
preferred self at various subordinate points. The Organization
Corollary
predicts that the lines of implications of these constructs should
converge at
higher levels of superordination, and this is exactly what was found.
It should
be emphasized that the specific information yielded by this
hierarchical technique
is enormously suggestive of further theoretical research. Subjects were
extremely interested and involved with this part of the experimental
procedure,
because—in effect—they are being asked to delineate some of their most
fundamental commitments in their present life. They are at the same
time rank
ordering these commitments in terms of a scale of values—or
over-arching
principles of choice. Unfortunately, the content of these hierarchies
is only
very tangentially related to the interests of this present
dissertation, but let
me strongly invite the reader to spend a few minutes exploring his own
construct system—or that of a friend—with this technique. Constructs
functioning at this level of superordination are of fundamental
importance; an
awareness of them is essential for understanding the world of another
human
being—or ourselves. (In keeping with the philosophy of constructive
alternativism, let me quickly append a propositional “perhaps” to that
last
statement! The invitation, however, still stands.)
The
themes of achievement and affiliation were frequently observed in the
hierarchies of the people participating in the study. This reflects the
vocational and interpersonal concerns which seem to typify late
adolescence in
this subculture. The following is a sample of those constructs which
terminated
(i.e., the most superordinate constructs) the hierarchies of the
subjects: get
less-get more out of life; have purpose in life-have no purpose;
accomplish
more-accomplish less; happy-unhappy; life-death; good time-bad time;
satisfaction-frustration; feel wanted-feel unwanted; stimulating-dull
and boring;
new ideas-same ideas; goals-no goals; cold feeling-warm feeling;
clarity-confusion;
more fun-less fun; moody-stable; people will help you-people won't;
miss a lot-have
good times; have respect of others-be a social outcast; more
knowledge-less
knowledge; change-sameness; be worth while-be worthless; and fulfilled
in
life-unfulfilled. For Kelly, the principle that subsumes all choice
points is
the principle of the Elaborative Choice, the Choice Corollary. In
construct
form, this principle might be worded as: expands or clarifies my
outlook versus
reduces or obscures my outlook. Personal construct theory assumes that
this is
the ultimate principle of choice. Construct alternativism implies that
there
could be others.
The
subject is now asked to review his list of superordinate constructs to
assure
that they are different from one another. The ten superordinate
constructs are
then entered on the Implication Grid as constructs 11 through 20.
6.
The determination of the relative
resistance
to slot change of the elicited constructs. The twenty
elicited constructs
are presented to the subject two at a time in such a way that each
construct is
paired with every other construct. They are written on 3" x 5" cards,
and the preferred side of each construct is indicated with a check
mark.
Constructs I and 2 are presented to the subject. He is instructed:
“Look at
these two constructs. The check marks indicate the sides you said you
would
prefer to be on. Now, let's assume for the moment that you had to
change from
the preferred side to the unpreferred side on one of these constructs,
but
could remain the same on the other. Which of these two constructs would
you
prefer to remain the same on? Remember, you will have to change on the
other
one. What we are trying to find out here is if you had to change which
of these
two changes would be the more undesirable, as you see it? We would
prefer you
to make a choice whenever possible, but there are two circumstances in
which
you will find it impossible to make a choice. The first is when the two
changes
both appear to be undesirable to exactly the same degree. In most
cases,
however, you will be able to detect some difference between the two
which will
enable you to make a decision. The second instance is when it is not
logically
possible to change on one construct and at the same time remain the
same on the
other. This is the case where changing on one construct logically
implies that
you must also have changed on the other construct. Let me know when
either of
these two circumstances occurs. Any questions?”
Construct
1 is now paired with all other constructs, then it is removed from the
deck,
and construct 2 is paired with all of the remaining constructs; it is
then
removed. This process is continued until all the constructs have been
paired
together with all other constructs. The relative resistance to slot
change of
the twenty constructs can be determined by rank ordering them in terms
of a
scoring formula which takes into account the number of times each
construct resisted
being changed during the pairing sequence. The exact scoring procedure
will be
discussed later. The resistance to slot change grid for each subject is
included in the Appendix.
7.
The implication grid technique.
Basically, the implication grid is a matrix of the superordinate and
subordinate implications that interrelate a set of constructs. In this
study
only those relationships of implication which were of the parallel or
reciprocal forms were indexed. The subject was instructed 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—if you realized that
you were
changed in this one respect—what
other constructs of these nineteen remaining ones would be 1ikely to be changed by a change in
yourself on this one construct
alone? Changing back and forth on just this one construct will probably cause you to predictably change
back and forth on which other constructs? Remember, a change on just
this one
construct is the cause, while the changes on these other constructs are
the
effects implied by the changes from one side to the other on this
construct
alone. What I'd like to find out, then, is on which of these constructs
do you
probably expect a change to occur as the result
of knowing that you have changed from one side to the other
of this one
construct alone. A knowledge of your location on this one construct
could
probably be used to determine your location on which of these remaining
constructs?” Construct 1 is then paired with each of the remaining
constructs.
The subject then indicates in effect the superordinate implications of
parallel
or reciprocal form of construct 1 with respect to the set of
constructs. This same
process is repeated for each of the twenty constructs so as to index
the
superordinate implications of each construct with respect to the
remaining set
of nineteen.
After
completing the implication grid, the subject has—in effect—construed 21
different personalities for himself. Each of the 20 columns on the
implication
grid represents a possible alternative self-construction which the
subject has
envisioned. The twenty-first personality is his preferred self
construction,
and this is represented by his side preferences on the 20 constructs.
The
facility with which people complete this task is remarkable; it hints
at the
complexity and multitude of alternative self-constructions which each
of us can
anticipate for ourselves—and for others, as well. The role variability
within
persons is potentially enormous. Even between people who might be using
the
same constructs (as defined by identical subordinate implications),
there can
still be great individual differences in the superordinate implications
of
these constructs.
Each
subject's implication grid is included in the Appendix. (Since each of
the 28
subjects construed 21 personalities, the collection portrays 588
anticipated
self-constructions.) The column patterns represent the superordinate
implications of the various constructs. The row
patterns, however, do not match the corresponding column
patterns. The row
patterns represent the subordinate implications of the various
constructs with
respect to the set of constructs. That is, a row pattern indicates
those
constructs of the set which could be used to imply one's polar
positions on a
given construct. The given construct, therefore, is the common
superordinate
implication (of parallel or reciprocal form) of these constructs. These
row and
column patterns of the Impgrid (and why not!) are analogous to the
construct
and figure patterns of the Repgrid. The Repgrid is a matrix of
constructs about
different constructs (i.e., the figures), while the Impgrid is a matrix
of the
superordinate and subordinate network of implications that interrelate
a
specific set of constructs within a given context. The context in this
study was
the person's anticipated self-constructions; numerous modifications of
context
are possible. Many methods of scoring and factoring the implication
grid are
also possible; some of these will be discussed later.
8.
Post experimental interview and
debriefing.
After completing the implication grid all subjects were asked to
comment on the
experiment, particularly with reference to what they thought its
purpose was.
The vast majority reported that it had been very absorbing and
interesting and
that they had experienced a sense of being intimately understood. They
also
frequently reported gaining an increased understanding of their own
outlook as
a result of their participation. (So well received was the experimental
procedure
in fact, that the experimenter was contacted by over one dozen friends
of the
subjects asking if they could participate also. (Most were not students
in the
introductory psychology course.) Almost all of the subjects reported
having no
idea about the purpose of the experiment. Three subjects ventured the
guess
that the experiment was designed to test the “logical consistency” of
their thinking.
The subjects were then questioned in detail about what basis they had
used to
make their decisions about which construct they preferred to remain the
same on
during the determination of the relative resistance to slot change
phase of the
experiment (Step 6). Not one subject was able to formulate an
explanation for the
basis of his decisions. That is, how did they know which to choose? Why
did
they choose the one they chose? The usual response was “I don't know; I
just
seemed to know; it just felt right.” This line of questioning left the
majority
of subjects rather perplexed. The experimenter then answered in detail
any of
the subject's questions about the experiment. The average length of
time required
to complete the experiment was 2 hours and 53 minutes with a range from
1 hour
and 5 minutes to 4 hours and 40 minutes.
Scoring
A
wide
variety of scoring systems for the data of the resistance to change
grids and
the implication grids are possible. A number of them were tried; the
results of
these methods corresponded quite closely to the results obtained from
the
scoring systems presented below. The scoring systems finally used in
this study
were developed primarily as an attempt to eliminate tied scores in the
data.
1.
Resistance to change grid scoring
method.
The purpose of this method is to rank order the 20 constructs in terms
of their
relative resistance to slot change. Because change on some construct
pairs
appeared to the subject to be (1) equally undesirable or (2) logically
incompatible, the number of actual choice pairings for each of the
constructs
varied. It was also observed that, not infrequently, the pairings of
three or
more constructs would violate the logical principle of transitivity,
that is,
if A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than
C. For example,
in the construct pairs A-B, B-C, and A-C, subjects would occasionally
say that
they would change on B rather than A, change on C rather than B, but
then they
would indicate that they would rather change on A than C. These
instances might
indicate that constructs A, B, and C are practically equal in
importance to the
subject. (It is worth noting that the latency time between the
presentation of
a construct pair and the final decision by the subject was markedly
longer for
pairings of highly similar constructs; thus, latency measures could be
used in
subsequent investigations.) The important point here is that a forced
rank
ordering of highly similar constructs (particularly is this so with a
cognitively simple structure) increases error variance. Since the
following scoring
method does force a rank ordering of the constructs along a 20 step
scale, the
results reported in this study are conservative. To rank order the 20
constructs, the following rules are applied in order of precedence:
1.
For
each construct obtain the total number of times it resisted being
changed in
all of its pairings (its resistance score). Obtain the total of the
number of
actual choice pairings for each construct (its actual choice score).
The
actual-choice score is 19 minus the sum of the number of logically
inconsistent
pairings and the number of equally undesirable pairings.
2.
Locate
all those constructs which were never changed in their pairings. Of
these, the
one with the highest resistance score is designated rank 1, the
remainder are
then rank ordered in terms of decreasing resistance scores. (When tied
scores
occur here, each of them is assigned the average of the ranks which
would have been
assigned had no ties occurred.)
3.
The
remaining constructs are ranked in order of decreasing resistance
scores unless;
a.
Two or more constructs have equal
resistance
scores. These constructs are then ranked in terms of which
one resisted change
more often when paired with the others of the tied set. If this cannot
be
determined from the grid (i.e., no actual choices occurred between the
set),
then they are ranked in order of increasing actual choice scores (e.g.,
a
construct which resisted change in 9 of 13 actual choice pairings would
be
given a lower numerical rank—indicating a greater resistance to
change—than a
construct which resisted change in 9 of 19 actual choice pairings. The
logic
here is that the resistance score of the first construct might have
been higher
if the number of actual choice pairings had been equal.)
b.
Two untied constructs have
resistance scores
that differ by only one point. If the actual choice score is
equal to, or
greater than the actual choice score of the other construct, the rank
order
between these two constructs will be determined by their pairing on the
grid,
that is, the one that resisted change in this pairing will be assigned
the
lower rank order numberindicating a greater resistance to change. If
the
pairing is indeterminate, then they will be ranked in order of
decreasing resistance
scores.
A
simpler, though somewhat less accurate scoring method for the
resistance to
change grid would be to rank order the constructs according to the
percentage
of times each resisted being changed in its pairings. This will
increase the
number of tied scores, however. Notice that the rankings produced by
either of
these methods reflect an approximate hierarchy of values or commitments
for the
subject. The logically incompatible pairings probably indicate
constructs of
high factorial similarity.
2.
The implication grid scoring
method
The
variety of ways in which the implication grid can be analyzed are still
being
explored. Some of these will be discussed in Chapter VI. In this study
the grid
was scored as follows:
a.
The
column for each construct was summed to indicate its first order
superordinate
range of implications. Then the superordinate ranges of implication for
the
specific constructs 44 in the superordinate range of implication for a
given
construct were summed. This sum represents the second
order range of implications for the given construct. The 20
constructs were then rank ordered in terms of their second order
superordinate
implications. The numerical rank of 1 denotes that construct which has
the
greatest number of second order implications. The second order range of
implications was used to minimize tie scores; actually, the correlation
between
the first order ranks and the second order ranks was extremely high,
thus, the
use of second order implications was probably superfluous. (It should
be noted
that the superordinate range includes construct relations of both the
parallel
and reciprocal forms.)
b.
The
superordinate range of implications for the subordinate constructs
were,
respectively, the sum of the sums of columns 1 through 10, and the sum
of the
sums of the columns 11 through 20.
c.
The
subordinate range of implications for the subordinate and the
superordinate
constructs were, respectively, the sum of the sums of rows 1 through
10, and
the sum of the sums of rows 11 through 20.
The hypotheses
stated operationally
(see p. 29 for the general statement).
1.
The
rank order of the constructs as derived from the resistance to change
grid
should be highly positively correlated with the rank order derived from
the
implication grid.
2.
The
sum on the Implication grid of the sums of columns 1-10 will be
significantly
less than the sum of the sums of columns 11-20 for the group.
3.
The
sum on the Implication grid of the sums of rows 1-10 will be
significantly less
than the sum of the sums of rows 11-20 for the group.
3.
Constructs 11-20 will have a lower mean resistance to change rank order
(indicating a greater resistance to slot movement) than constructs
1-10.
CHAPTER
V
RESULTS
The
best
results of this study have little to do with the hypotheses set forth
in the
last chapter. This research provided a series of observations about (1)
the
process of “doing” research itself, (2) the individuals who
participated in the
study, (3) others’ constructions of what the study was all about, and
(4) the
characteristics of the techniques employed. These observations raised a
myriad of
questions; it is these questions which constitute the best results of
the
study.
As
an
illustration, let me cite the first two people who participated
(Appendix,
subjects 1 and 2). Subject 1 was a 19-year-old, intelligent, poised,
very
attractive, well dressed sorority girl—from one of the “best”
sororities, at
that. Noticing the conspicuous displaying of a rather large diamond
ring, the
experimenter asked whether she had recently become engaged—to which she
replied
with radiant warmth, “Oh yes! Two weeks ago today!” In response to a
question
about when the happy event was to take place, she said—with equal
radiance—, “In
just two and a half years!” This was slightly unnerving, but the
experiment
flowed along smoothly; in fact we were ahead of schedule and had
enjoyed three
leisurely ten-minute breaks. Then, to construct 16 of the implication
grid, in
addition to the indicated responses, this subject became enuretic. You
read it
correctly. This was unnerving; it
had
not at all been taken into account by the dissertation prospectus. To
spare the
girl the embarrassment of acknowledgment, the experiment was quickly
completed and
a ruse concocted so that she could leave with aplomb—and a wet bottom.
Now,
there continued to be some discussion as to whether or not this
represented the
application of a preverbal construct. Interestingly, construct 3, wants
to get
married-doesn't want to get married, implies realistic-naive (number
9),
self-centered-broader outlook (number 16), and narrow-minded-well
rounded
(number 17). It is implied by needed-unneeded (number 15),
useful-unuseful
(number 20), and self-centered-broader outlook (number 16). Thus,
construct 16
and construct 3 are reciprocally related; this is the only reciprocal
implication of construct 3. Construct 16, however, is very heavily
reciprocally
loaded on the other constructs of the Grid, while construct 3 is not.
Apparently the subject had not elaborated the implications of wanting
to get
married, since a reciprocal implication is taken to indicate a very
high degree
of functional similarity between constructs. Thus, extending the
implications
of 16 may have indicated to her the significance of wanting to get
married. At
any rate, she produced interesting "results."
Following
this episode and with much trepidation—the experimenter hesitantly
began the
interview with subject 2. This subject was a 23-year-old, thin,
unshaven,
dishevelled, suspicious, deliberating male. He seemed to be most
interested in
the task and frequently became deeply absorbed in his thoughts,
particularly
with respect to his unusual elaboration of the Buddhist conception of
unity
(see 48 construct 14, unified-isolated). He produced a remarkably
symmetrically
patterned implication grid through the process of lengthy
intellectualized discourses
about each implication. At the end of the experiment, he asked to see
his
implication grid. He studied it for some time, then commented on its
symmetry
and interrelatedness. He asked if the experiment was to test the
“logical consistency”
of his thinking, and was told “No.” He then said, “It's kind of
paranoid, isn't
it?” to which the experimenter replied, “I'm not quite sure I
understand what
you mean by ‘paranoid’”. He said, “Well, if it’s really confidential in
here,
I'll tell you. I'm kind of in therapy—with a psychiatrist—group
therapy. You
know? He says I'm paranoid schiz. I'm withdrawn, paranoid, and a drug
addict—primarily
marijuana, but I've been off it for awhile now.” He related that he had
been
quite socially withdrawn for about the last five years and used this to
explain
the consistency of his thought. “If you have nothing else to do—if
you're as
withdrawn as I have been—then you'd only have your thoughts left.
That's what I
do, I put them in order, that's most all I do.... Oh, I get depressed
often.
The world can never be changed, so I guess I've just given up, that's
all.” His
one ambition in life is to become a writer (construct 12). His
commentary suggests
that the maintenance of such an extraordinarily tight and simple
structure
would necessitate the following tactics: the use of excessively
lopsided,
loose, or permeable constructs; the frequent extortion of
validation-hostility;
3) the general withdrawal from validational-invalidational situations
(i.e.,
constriction of the perceptual field). Notice that the invalidation of
49 almost
any one of his constructs would produce a massive implicative shift in
the
direction of threat; it is perhaps for this reason that he cannot
conceive of a
changing, evolving "world." His Impgrid is also unusual in that there
are no significant differences between his subordinate and
superordinate
constructs with respect to their superordinate range of implications
(Chi
square = - 0.15), or their subordinate range of implications (Chi
square = + 0.04).
(A negative sign means that subordinate constructs had more
implications than superordinate
constructs.) The threat hypothesis (relative resistance to slot
movement
correlated with superordinate range of implications), however, was
highly
significant for this man (rho = + 0.82, p<.0005, one tailed
test).
Subject
15, should perhaps also be mentioned. He was a tall, lanky, crew cut,
18-year-old, Freshman baseball player. He described himself as “the
only
child—and spoiled! I really am not very good at ball, but I need people
to tell
me I'm important; I like to see my name in the paper. I guess it’s
'cause I'm
hanging on by my fingernails in baseball.... Me and Mom—we're together!
We use Dad,
I guess. He doesn't like baseball, but Mom—well, she likes everything I
do.
She's really great. She's my best fan. Comes to all the games. You know
what my
goal is? (Shyly) I want to make varsity, and when I graduate I want to
give Mom
my letter sweater, so she can wear it to her women's clubs. She'd be
proud with
it on; she already told me that.” And later, “To be a success and be
able to feel
important, that's the main thing I want out of life.” Aside from being
reminiscent of a morbid scene from Edward Albee's play The
American Dream, he did produce an interesting implication
grid.
Construct 20—feel important-feel unimportant—shows the greatest
resistance to
slot movement and the highest number of superordinate implications. It
also has
a fairly large number of subordinate implications. This dimension seems
to
represent a point of unstable equilibrium—or positive feedback—in this
subsystem, because it is both the cause and effect of numerous changes
in the
system. Thus, slot movement on this construct will probably produce a
spiralling of elation or depression. Construct 8—Jewish-Presbyterian—is
interesting, because it showed the second highest resistance to slot
change,
yet it had no superordinate implications—which is just the reverse of
what would
be expected according to the threat hypothesis. When questioned about
slot
movement in the direction of becoming Jewish, the subject replied that
he liked
Christmas trees and pork, and so, saw no advantages to being Jewish. He
reported that he had met a Jewish person once and hadn't much liked
him. The
obvious paucity of constructs related to the Jewish pole of the
construct
suggests that high resistance to slot change here represents the
avoidance of
anxiety rather than threat. Being Jewish is a context that is outside
the range
of convenience of his system, except for some few, vaguely unfavorable
connotations.
Another construct that functioned in a similar way on several other
grids was
the dimension masculine-feminine. Here several males had high
resistance to
change scores for this dimension, but their Impgrids revealed that
feminine-masculine
had few differential implications for them (except that movement toward
the
feminine pole was to be highly resisted). Perhaps, in part, the
stability of personality,
roles, moral attitudes and opinions, etc., results from the relative
absence of
differential construct implications relating to slot movements; that is
to say,
the strategy of censorship and other forms of repressive control are
based, in
part, on the maintenance of conditions of anxiety with respect to
various slot
movements. Virtue in this form is a synonym for ignorance. It should be
noted
that the presence of these anxiety constructs in this study constitute
a
considerable source of error variance with respect to the threat
hypothesis being
investigated; they had not been anticipated. The technique of locating
constructs that are highly resistance to change, but that have few
implications, should be of considerable interest in subsequent research
in the
area of anxiety. It is hoped that these illustrations will give the
reader some
indication of the hypotheses which can be generated by a careful
examination of
the data contained in the Appendix.
The
statistical analysis of the data in terms of the specific hypotheses
gave the
following results:
Hypothesis
1. The relative resistance to slot change of personal constructs will
be
directly related to the superordinate range of implications of those
constructs.
A
Spearman rho was calculated for each subject using the resistance to
change
rank order and the second order superordinate implications rank order
for the
20 constructs. These individual correlations are reported in the
Appendix. The
28 correlations were then converted to Fisher Z scores in order to
calculate
the mean Spearman rho for the group. In spite of the presence of the
anxiety 52
constructs previously discussed, the threat effect was substantial and
very
highly significant (mean rho = + 0.59, t = 3.708, p < .0005,
one-tailed, df
= 26).
Hypothesis
2. Constructs functioning at a higher level of superordination in a
hierarchical context will have a larger superordinate range of
implications
than constructs functioning at a low level.
The
significance of the difference in frequency of the superordinate and
subordinate constructs for each subject was determined by the chi
square
distributions. The individual results are reported in the Appendix. For
the
group, superordinate constructs had almost 18 per cent more
superordinate
implications than subordinate constructs (17.89 %, chi square = 618.34,
df =
27, p very significantly less than .001, since the chi square required
for this
value is 55.48.)
Hypothesis
3. Constructs functioning at a higher level of superordination in a
hierarchical context will have a larger subordinate range of
implications than
constructs functioning at a low level.
The
individual chi squares are to be found in the Appendix. A difference of
nearly
19 per cent more subordinate implications for superordinate constructs
was
found (18.89 %, chi square = 1012.65, df = 27, p very significantly
less than
.001, since the chi square required for this value is 55.48.)
Hypothesis
4. Constructs functioning at a higher level of superordination in a
hierarchical context will show a greater relative resistance to slot
change
than constructs functioning at a low level. 53
The
mean
resistance rank for each of the two subordinate and superordinate
groups of
constructs was calculated for each subject. The rank order range is
from 1 to
20, where 1 indicates the highest relative resistance to slot change.
For the
group, the mean resistance rank for superordinate constructs was 7.86;
the mean
resistance rank for subordinate constructs was 13.14; the mean
difference of
5.28 is very highly significant (t = 10.369, p < .0005,
one-tailed, df =
27).
Further
analyses of the data which are now in progress will be discussed in the
following chapter.
CHAPTER
VI
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH
The
results of this study have furnished substantial initial evidence for
the
utility of the theory of construct implications and the associated
methodologies of the hierarchical method, the resistance to slot change
grid,
and the implication grid. The broader theoretical significance of these
results
is that they provide support for the Choice and Organization
Corollaries of
personal construct theory. In addition, the findings again highlight
the
importance of Kelly's First Principle: “If you don't know, ask the
person; he
just might tell you!” Basically, the methodologies of this study were
the means
whereby a person could explain his outlook, in a systematic fashion, to
a
rather thick-headed experimenter.
Now,
in a
chapter such as this, it is perhaps a bit redundant to say that a
dissertation
about implications has implications for further research, but such is
the case.
These ideas are by no means integrated at this point in time, so they
will be
presented in a cafeteria style:
1.
The
construct implication rationale and methodologies obviously require
experimental cross-validation using various treatment conditions within
subjects, and perhaps various non-verbal behavior correlates as well.
The
present study was a correlational one.
2.
Since
scalar change is a slot change in the magnitude used to describe a
construct
alternative, the general approach of this study should be useful for
investigating this intriguing form of construct change. It is
interesting to
note that scalar reconstruction may, or may not, result in a change of
implication; thus, scalar changes can be used to stabilize, or alter,
an
implicative network, depending on other factors. The use of scalar
constructions seems to relate to the process of loosening and
tightening
subsystems. Scalar change appears to be determined by the increase or
decrease
in the number of subordinate constructs which can be used to imply a
polar position
on a given construct.
3.
The
Choice Corollary and the inferential compatibility interpretation of
the
Modulation Corollary suggest an approach to the determination of the
relative
permeability of constructs. If so, this might enable a therapist to
anticipate
the effects of linking various constructs. (Inference, here, refers to
psychological inference; this is not necessarily equivalent to logical
inference.)
4.
Constellations,
pre-emptiveness, and propositionality have been previously defined as
being a
particular class of superordinate constructs about various construct
subsystems. The fact of construct interrelatedness is in no way taken
as a
measure of constellatoriness or propositonality. Such a definition
provides a
new point of departure for subsequent research.
5.
The
importance of a person's superordinate constructs about subsystems and
the
process of construing itself is enormous and relatively unexplored.
Chapter VII
was written to illustrate just this point. The concern with
hierarchical
location in this study reflects a strong interest in tapping into the
highly
superordinate network of constructs about the process of construing,
that is,
reconstruction. Impulsivity, rigidity, propositionality, the
decisionmaking and
creativity cycles, all seem to be related to these superordinate
constructs
about the management of construing and the anticipated status of the
resulting
construct system. This notion of the monitoring of the process of
construing
provided a basis for the slot movement hypotheses of this study. The
Choice
Corollary and the associated threat hypothesis are constructions which
were
apparently shared in some measure by the majority of the people in the
experiment. At any rate, we need to know a good deal more about
people's
personal anticipations and constructions about the process of
anticipating--their principles of "systems management," as it were.
Creativity can be regarded as being a set of such superordinate
principles; if
so, these principles can be communicated and modulated.
6.
As an
illustration of the issue just raised, the following hypothesis
received some
support in a pilot study: Change in the subordinate implications of a
construct
(i.e., loosening or tightening) will be facilitated by the prior
stabilization
of the superordinate implications of that construct; likewise, change
in the
superordinate implications will also be facilitated by the prior
stabilization
of the subordinate implications of that construct. This idea was
derived from
the threat hypothesis and the principle of maximizing the total system
implicativeness as cited in this dissertation. A psychotherapy analogue
is the
resolution of transference by the use of the technique 57 of
reassurance. This
is the notion that constructural reorganization can take place only
from a
position of relative stability. The implication grid technique will
soon be
used in a formal test of these hypotheses.
7.
The
implication grid seems to hold promise as a technique for locating
those
construct dimensions along which reaction formation or extreme
behavioral
transformation would probably occur.
8.
In the
present study only the parallel and reciprocal forms of construct
implication were
indexed by the Impgrid. The orthogonal and ambiguous forms could also
be
investigated by this technique. Orthogonal relationships might indicate
the
points of transition from one hierarchical subsystem to another. The
implicative dilemmas of the ambiguous linkages seem related to conflict
and
double-bind theory, and are, therefore, of particular clinical
interest.
9.
The
trans-contextual identity of constructs has been previously mentioned
as a
problem in need of resolution. Perhaps the indexing of the ranges of
implication of a construct will be useful here.
10.
The
excellent dissertation of Jennings (14) involved the experimental
alteration of
the loosening and tightening phases of the creativity cycle. The theory
of
construct implication suggests that the subordinate implications, or
the
superordinate implications of a construct, or both, maybe either
loosened or
tightened. The systematic effects of these variations remain to be
explored.
(See also 6, above.)
11.
A
number of investigators have been interested in the differences between
personal and provided constructs. Isaacson (13) and Cromwell and
Caldwell (6),
for example, found that personal constructs resulted in more extreme
ratings
than provided constructs. The distinction is arbitrary, however,
because all
constructions are personal constructions. This dissertation supports
the
hypothesis that the threat potential of a construct is a function of
its
implicative significance. Now, if it can be shown that the differential
systematic implications of "personal" constructs are significantly
greater than the implications of "provided" constructs, then one
would expect that it would be more important to clearly resolve
constructional
ambivalence on these constructs of high implicative significance than
on those
constructs of low significance.
12.
Resnick and Landfield (54) in their investigation of the Dichotomy
Corollary
distinguished between logical constructs (e.g., mature-immature) and
peculiar
constructs (e.g. intelligent-bad). Perhaps peculiar constructs
represent a
highly constellatory implicative relationship between two construct
dimensions
(e.g., intelligent-stupid and good-bad). A way of testing to see if
peculiar
constructs represent such a relationship would be to ask the subject if
all
events which are described by the negation of one pole of the construct
must
necessarily be described by the opposite pole in all cases.
13.
Newman's (51) distinction between stable self-constructs and self
movement
constructs suggests—in terms of construct implications—that movement on
stable
self constructs may be limited by either extensive implicative
invalidation—threat—or the absence of an elaborated
alternative—anxiety. The
converse would be predicted for the self movement constructs. The
Impgrid
methodology could be used to test this hypothesis.
14.
This
same methodology could be used to clarify the meaning of the
fascinating Bieri
generalization gradient (3). This effect could be accounted for if it
is shown
that the similarity of constructs is directly related to the degree of
interrelatedness of their superordinate implications in a given
hierarchical
context. Thus, when invalidation of a construct threatens the
hierarchical
implicative network with invalidation, stabilization of similar
constructs will
function to preserve the implicative integrity of this network.
15.
The
indexing of the polar implications of constructs should allow one to
differentiate more clearly between threat and anxiety constructs. It
should
also provide a basis for differential predictions concerning the
relative
degree of threat or anxiety, since these degrees are regarded as being
a
function of the range of implication of the available constructs.
16.
Core
and peripheral constructs could be differentiated by indexing the
number of
implications in their respective ranges of implication. This
information would
be of particular interest to the psychotherapist.
17.
During the elicitation of construct hierarchies by the hierarchical
method, it
was observed that occasionally a specific construct label would be
given at
several different levels in the hierarchy, e.g., if constructs A, B,
and C
imply X, and X implies D, E, and F, then occasionally D, E, and F would
imply X
again, and this would, in turn, imply G, H, and I. The construct that
functioned most frequently in this fashion was "happy-unhappy." The
theoretical significance of this is not clearly understood. It may mean
only
that construct labels will have to be “indexed” in the manner of
General Semantics
with subscripts indicating their locations in a hierarchy.
18.
The
data of the Impgrid is readily amenable to the various factor analytic
techniques that have been used with the Repgrid. The host of measures
that are
made possible by a factor analysis of either the columns or rows of the
Impgrid
are still in the process of elaboration. It is planned that the data of
this
study will be reanalyzed in light of these measures in the near future.
Hopefully, some additional hypotheses can be tested, as well.
19.
A
variety of comparisons between the data of the Impgrid and the Repgrid
are
possible. To date, we have only a limited number of protocols from
people who
completed both designs. The pilot studies of both J. R. Adams-Webber
and E. L.
Morse (The Ohio State University, 1965) are—among other things—throwing
light
on this aspect of construct theory research. The advantages of using
the
combined data from these two techniques are still, as yet, untapped.
20.
While
many modifications of the Impgrid are possible, it was used in this
study to
indicate the parallel and reciprocal forms of implication among
constructs of
the preferred self hierarchy. It is possible to also analyze the
patterns of
the parallel and reciprocal relationships separately. On the Impgrid,
the cells
indicating reciprocal relationships are the points of column and row
symmetry
for each construct. A reciprocal relationship between two constructs is
taken
to indicate a very high degree of functional similarity between the two
constructs.
Notice that the remainder of the implication grid patterns for the two
reciprocally related constructs may differ widely, as was the case for
constructs 16 and 3 for subject 1 cited in Chapter V, or they may be
nearly
identical. As was suggested by the experience of subject 1, markedly
different
patterns might have clinical significance. Now, if reciprocal
relationships
indicate functional similarity, then it seems clearly probable that (1)
the
number of such reciprocal relationships and (2) the specific reciprocal
relationships for each construct could be easily used to predict the
factorial
similarity—or cluster membership—of all of the constructs on the
implication
grid. That is, the construct which shows the highest number of
reciprocal relationship
with the other constructs on the Impgrid should appear as the centre of
the
first cluster in a factor analysis of the grid. The Impgrid for subject
8 (see
Appendix) furnishes perhaps the clearest illustration. Notice
particularly the
two blocks of reciprocal implications for constructs 17, 18, 19, and 20
and
constructs 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16. These should appear as two
separate
clusters when factored. Notice that constructs 11 and 16 have the
highest
number of reciprocal implications within the Impgrid matrix; they
should thus have
the highest loadings in a factor analysis. What is being suggested here
is that
perhaps it would be psychologically more advantageous to factor the
patterns of
reciprocal implications only. This variant is presently being explored.
21.
The
implication grid methodology was developed primarily as a means to
directly
assess construct relationships. Many modifications are possible. For
example,
one could generate implication grids for a wide variety of contexts and
conditions
of administration (It would be interesting to see whether the total
number of
implications on a grid varied as a function of examiner credulousness,
for
example. One intriguing variation would be to ask a subject to think
about a
particular person (a Repgrid figure, for example). Then, ask him to
indicate what
other construct locations they could probably imply about this person
if they
only know his location on a given construct and no others. The
resulting
Impgrid would portray their network of implications about this one
person. The
procedure would then be repeated using different figures in each case.
It is
expected that certain constructs might be related in the context of
certain
people, but not in others. Such variations would be of particular
clinical
interest. This procedure could be used as a measure of loosened
construction;
or, perhaps, the formation of impersonal perceptions by controlling
such
parameters as the amount and kind of information supplied. It also
offers an approach
to the problem of constellatoriness and propositionality. Subjects
could be
asked to rate their degree of certainty about the utility of each of
the
construct implications they form. (The Impgrid instructions should
stress the
idea of probable—not logical—implication.) These ratings should then
indicate
areas of potential loosening and tightening, since they are taken to be
measures of constellatoriness and propositionality. As such, they are
one of
the predictors of psychological movement. The factors affecting the
formation and
alteration of them, as well as the systematic consequences of such
alteration,
will be experimentally investigated in the near future. The Impgrid can
also be
used to indicate the superordinate networks which link various
construct
subsystems.
22.
The
scoring procedures of the Impgrid are also widely variable (see 18 and
20,
above). It is possible to calculate an index of logical inconsistency
for each
Impgrid. This scoring system is based on the principle of transitivity,
i.e.,
if A implies B, and B implies C, then A should also imply C. Thus, if
construct
1 implies constructs 3, 7, and 8, then it should also probably imply
everything
that 3, 7, and 8 imply; it may also imply additional constructs as
well, but it
should at least imply the constructs implied by 3, 7, and 8. The
instances
where this has not been the case—where the probable implications have
not been
extended—are of particular clinical and theoretical interest. This
logical
inconsistency index could be used as an operational definition for
insight. The
data of the present study will be reanalyzed using a correction factor
for the
relative lack of logical extension of construct implications, since not
extending the implications of a construct will create a considerable
error in the
superordinate implications rank order for that construct. It will be of
considerable theoretical interest to see if the correlation between the
relative resistance to slot change ranks and the superordinate
implications
ranks (i.e., the threat hypothesis) can be increased by a correction
for the
lack of implicative extension.
23.
The
rows of the Impgrid indicate those constructs which can be used by the
subject
to imply his polar location on a given construct; that is, the given
construct
monitors changes on the constructs within its subordinate range of
implication.
The rows, therefore, are related to the relative range of convenience
of the
constructs. Now, the Choice Corollary of personal construct theory
implies that
every time a person chooses an alternative of a dichotomous construct
he must
have made some prior decision about whether or not the choice will
elaborate
his system. Thus, each person is expected to have a personal theory or
philosophy about what constitutes the greatest pathways of elaboration
for him.
It is to these constructs that he refers when making choices among
construct
alternatives; that is, the choices must at least be compatible with
these
over-arching personal principles of choice. In order to function
effectively
these principles must have an extremely broad range of convenience,
since presumably
they monitor all construct alternative choices. Therefore, if the row
patterns
indicate the relative monitoring range for each construct, then it
follows that
those constructs which have the broadest subordinate range of
implications
should be the ones which constitute these pervasive principles of
elaborative
choice within the set for the particular person. Reading the constructs
of the
implication grid in order of their row weightings will thus provide a
picture
of the hierarchical arrangement of principles within the set which a
person is
using to elaborate his life. To illustrate, the following constructs
are a
sample of those constructs which had the highest subordinate range of
implications for the people in the study: more responsibility-less;
happy-unhappy;
nervous-self-controlled; more friends-fewer friends; accomplish
more-accomplish
less; content-discontent; easier to get along with-harder; broad
interests-narrow;
understand people-misunderstand; mature-immature; full life-average
life;
feeling of well-being frustrated; do more-do less; get more rewards-get
fewer;
self-centered-generosity; easy going-worried; find out more about self
and life-less;
more job opportunities-fewer; gain respect of others-loose; have
success-have
little success.
Notice
that the personal meaning of these terms can be defined by their
respective row
and column implications. This provides a means for locating and
clarifying the
directions in which a person is elaborating his life. In this sense,
they are
somewhat related to the Adlerian concept of Life Style. Whether these
ideas
about the significance of Impgrid rows will be substantiated by later
research
remains to be seen.
24.
Individual difference measures such as total number of implications,
number of
reciprocal implications, logical inconsistency (22, above), ratios of
implications for subordinate and superordinate constructs, construct
similarity
indexes, etc., might be useful in future research.
25.
The
hierarchical method of construct elicitation and the row analysis of
the
Impgrid both gave hierarchical arrangements of achievement and
affiliation
themes. These techniques might be of interest to those interested in
these
constructs.
26.
If
the research in the field of cognitive dissonance is viewed as
basically the
evoking of inferentially incompatible constructs and the subsequent
reconstruction to reduce the incompatibility, then, by the use of the
implication grid technique, it should be possible to predict what
particular
personal constructs pairs would be “dissonant” and to what degree. One
should
also be able to make some wagers about the direction of “dissonance
reduction,”
as well.
27.
Lastly, the most important single implication for further research is
the
proposition that in order to understand another person, one must
understand the
network of implications which relate and define his personal constructs
in
specific contexts.
The
next
phase of research will be to apply the general approach of this study
to the
remaining two aspects of the problem of construct change; namely, the
shift
change and scalar change of personal constructs. Eventually, the
resulting
theory of construct change will be brought to bear on the problem of
the
analysis of the process of reconstruction occurring within the context
of
interacting construct systems—that is, the process of two-person social
relationships. The author would very much welcome communication from
others
whose research interests might be related to the issues set forth in
this dissertation.
CHAPTER
VII
A BRIEF AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH
This
dissertation represents both the end point of a cycle of experience and
the
beginning of one. The purpose of this chapter is to present a brief
autobiographical overview of the six-month cycle of experience which
terminated
with the writing of this manuscript. The beginnings of a new experience
cycle
have been delineated in the discussion of the implications for further
research
in Chapter VI. Since the focus of convenience of this research concerns
the
general problem of construct change—reconstruction—, the additional
requirement
of the self-reflexiveness of psychological theorizing implied by
personal construct
theory suggests that such an autobiographical section is itself
relevant to the
general topic of this dissertation. If nothing else, it documents that
experience does not come forth full-blown from the side of Jove.
Experience—in
the construct theory sense—is the interweave of events and constructs,
thus
this autobiography documents a cycle of people in interaction with
ideas.
The
educational origins of this research are complex and difficult to
trace, but it
seems to reflect the convergence of four interrelated streams of
thought. When
I was initially considering “doing” a dissertation, (I now know that it
is a
living one), it was of the utmost importance for me to know that I
would be
able in this research to ask people a significant question about the
direction
of their lives, the answer to which would be significant for me and
them and
would—in turn—lead to further questions. This statement is related to
the
following four concerns:
1.
Meaning and significance in psychology
2.
Change
and process conceptions
3.
Models
of Man
4.
The
relation of science to Man
The
word “concern”
is used to indicate these broad areas of personal envolvement. It was
essential
that the dissertation experience should be concerned with much more
than its
own completion.
The
issue
of meaning and significance had become quite salient for me after
completing
preparations for the General Examinations in clinical psychology. Apart
from
the question of the theoretical significance of the various studies
punctuating
the geometrical progression of psychological research, the question of
the
human significance became an even more important issue. Granted, the
term “human
significance” lacked the elegance—and simple-mindedness—of operational
definition, but there was no denying that it was full of meaning—and I
was not
at all sure that its meaning was simply surplus. It is of interest that
the
most exciting concept I remember from my S-R psychology and learning
theory days
was Clyde Nobel's m,
meaning—defined as the number of associates to a given
stimulus. Here, I thought, was an inroad to the person.
Several
other issues concerned me. Why was it that most proponents of various
theoretical positions did not use their espoused position
self-reflexively?
That is, why did they use one system of conceptualization for
themselves and
their intimates and another for their “experimental subjects”? Is there
to be
no psychology of psychologists? What is gained if we regard the phrase
“experimental
subjects” as a euphemism for “experimental objects”? What is gained if
we
abandon the hypothetico-deductive ambition to deduce Man? What is
gained if we regard
the purpose of psychology as being the creation of Man rather than his
reduction? What is gained if we examine Logical Positivism and
Dialectical Materialism
as modern sides of an ancient coin—the problem of Being and Becoming?
Since
each philosophy can be used to construe the other, are they not
alternative
constructions about construing? Can the structure versus process
dichotomy be
usefully resolved by regarding man as structure-in-process? If a
psychologist
were God—omniscient and omnipotent—possessing perfect prediction and
control—what then would he do as psychologist? In the naive realism
sense,
shall the purpose of the science of psychology be to discover the
secrets of
Man by lifting the nightgown of Nature? This is the objectification of
Man—Man,
the object. Not to acknowledge the existence of another—is that not the
ultimate hostility? What happens if science is viewed as the human
activity of
the expansion and articulation of anticipations? In what sense can the
goals of
science be seen to be human liberty; human community—in the sense of
the
communion of persons; and finally, the evolving awareness of the beauty
and awesomeness
of human existence?
What
you
have just read illustrates the kind of thinking which characterized the
rather
misty and global origins of this dissertation. As a style of thinking
it was
dilated, loose, propositional, invitational, and an expression of
personal
involvement and deeply-felt concern. In a very important way these
issues set
the outer parameters of the present work. Realizing that outer
parameters do
not make dissertations, a very patient George Kelly chided me by
suggesting
that a dissertation on the Nature of Man would be perfectly
acceptable—to which
I replied that I had not yet finished my thinking on the Nature of God
and the
Universe! Wisely, he then allowed me enough rope to hang myself; this
communicated faith and clarified responsibility.
From
this
point on the process of construing was primarily one of successive
pre-emption
and choice, tightening, and seeking and acknowledgment of confirmation
and
disconfirmation. A quotation from John Dewey— “Conventionalists and
extremists
are not Inquiring”—which I read during the national elections, provided
a
significant turning point. I equated inquiry with change and decided to
focus
on the problem of change itself. A sample of the constructs I was
elaborating
with respect to this problem included change-stability,
ambiguity-certainty,
relativity-absolutism, freedom-limitation, seeking-avoiding,
expression-repression,
creativity-conformity, future-past, process-entity,
expansion-constriction,
flexibility-figidity, open-dogmatic, identity- identity loss, static
stability-dynamic stability, consonance-dissonance,
congruity-incongruity,
balance-imbalance, leveling-sharpening, internal-external locus of
change,
high-low risk taking, high-low skill at role playing, the balance of
person
predictability versus environment predictability, sociological
variables, and
the temporal dimensionalization of kitchen sinks. My pre-emption at
this level
had at least taken me from the sea, but it landed me in an atheoretical
swamp.
It was here that I tried on George Kelly's freely offered and amazing
set of
glasses—and caught sight of land—with mountains to climb! Magnificent
mountains!
The
problem now became to see what change meant in terms of construct
theory,
research, and related methodologies. It became quite apparent—even
though I had
“read” Kelly—that the significance of personal construct theory can not
be
grasped until one has envisioned with it. It is fertility—significance
not yet
envisioned.
But
vision is not enough. It is necessary to be involved with the people
who are
the subjects of this science. My armamentarium now consisted of such
notions as
superordination-subordination, validation-invalidation, construct
density,
complexity, propositonality, pre-emption, constellatoriness,
permeability-impermeability,
looseness-tightness, dilation-constriction, repertory design, serial
invalidation, etc., and these constructs now stood in a nomothetic
network.
During this phase of the research I was involved in a number of
extensive interviews
and small, intensive pilot studies. The major lesson here was to learn
how to
ask questions about change so as to enable the person to explain
himself to me
systematically. At this time my conceptualizations were cluttered with
many
individual differences hypotheses which obscured the
structure-in-process
conception I was working toward. Basically, I explored the things I
could do to
produce a change and the variety of ways a person construed change in
his life.
Since the conception was to be self-reflexive, I became my most useful
subject.
The
pressure of time became a decisive factor, since I was preparing for a
Research
Fellowship in London, England for the following year. As I sat staring
at the
mass of hypotheses, microtheories, protocols, and field notes I had
compiled, I
acknowledged that the time for tightening and constriction, pre-emption
and
choice—was now. It is important to mention that at this moment I
experienced a
sense of depression, because—for me—tightening implied a loss of
implication, meaning,
and significance. It was not until my dissertation subjects were well
along in
their task of explaining themselves systematically to me that I
realized—profoundly—that clarification
and unequivocal prediction are the
means whereby we precipitate ourselves into a new
experience, new
meaning, and new significance. Many
of the characteristics of the implication grid were totally unimagined
until
after the leap had been made and the data collected. The sense of the
Mystery
of existence is not lost by clarification and commitment; it is gained.
I
had now
specifically focused the problem to the construct implications of slot
change.
I elaborated the notion that construct definition must involve a
statement of
the superordinate and subordinate implications—the focus and range of
implication—as well as its focus and range of convenience. The final
issue was
one of measurement techniques and methodology. By this time I had
become
sensitive to the loosening-tightening-testing sequence and could
modulate the
process, so that the hierarchical method and the implication grid
technique
readily evolved. The actual running of subjects was highly intimate and
meaningful;
it could hardly have been otherwise, since I was indexing significant
personal
constructs and the network of implications relating them for
twenty-eight
on-going human beings. The running of subjects represented the end of
one cycle
of experience, but the intimate contact and perspective which this
cycle has
provided now creates a magnificent vista. In this sense, determination
and initiative
are inexorably linked.
One
final
note: This research was a lived human experience. Science is not a
disembodied
entity—a mere exercise in voyeuristic objectification; it is a human
activity—perhaps the human
activity.
CHAPTER
VIII
SUMMARY
This
dissertation was conducted within the context of personal construct
theory and
addressed itself to the general problem of the change of personal
constructs.
Specifically, it presented an initial formulation of a theory of
construct
implications which was then applied to an analysis of the relative
resistance
to slot change of personal constructs. The hierarchical method for the
elicitation of superordinate constructs, the relative resistance to
slot change
grid, and the implication methodologies were used to test several
hypotheses
which related superordinate implications, level of superordination, and
resistance to slot change. The findings were substantial, highly
significant,
and provided support for the utility of the Choice and Organization
Corollaries
of personal construct theory. Numerous theoretical, methodological, and
empirical
questions were raised and suggestions for further research presented.
APPENDIX
Instructions
This appendix presents the complete data
for each subject who participated in the study. The following instructions
apply to the interpretation of these tables:
1. | The sex of each subject is indicated after
the subject number. | 2. | Constructs 1-10 are the subordinate
constructs; constructs 11-20 are the superordinate ones. The side of the
construct which is typed first is the side which the subject preferred for his
self-construction. | 3. | The matrix at the top of the page is the
relative resistance to slot change grid. The number of each of the twenty
constructs is indicated along the side and bottom of the grid. The rank order
of each construct is indicated directly below its number on the bottom of the grid.
The rank order of 1 designates the highest relative resistance to slot change.
A dash under a rank order number means that 0.5 is to be added to the indicated
whole number rank order. An “x” in a column indicates those constructs on which
a subject preferred to make a slot change on order to remain the same on the
given constructs indicated by the column. A blank in a column indicates,
therefore, those constructs which a subject preferred not to make a slot
change, but was willing to change the column construct in order to do so. An “x”
or a blank in a row, however, has just the opposite meaning. The letter “i” is
used to indicate those construct pairs for which a change on one while remaining
the same on the other is logically incompatible. Construct pairs for which no
choice could be made, because both changes were equally undesirable, are
indicated by the letter “e.” | 4. | The bottom matrix is the implication grid.
The number of each of the twenty constructs is indicated along the side and
bottom of the grid. The rank order of each construct is indicated directly below
its number on the bottom of the grid. The rank order of 1 designates the
highest number of second order superordinate implications. A dash under a rank
order number means that 0.5 is to be added to the indicated whole number rank
order. An “x” in a column indicates the parallel superordinate implications of
the column construct. An “r” in a column indicates the reciprocal superordinate
implications of the column construct. | 5. | The Spearman's rho for each subject for
hypothesis 1 follows the letter “A” at the bottom of the page. The correlations
for various p values using a one-tailed t test and an N of 20 are as follows:
rho | p | 0.378 0.515 0.561 0.679 | .05 .01 .005 .0005 |
| 6. | The data for each subject for hypothesis 2
follows the letter “B” at the bottom of the page. The first number is the sum
of the sums of columns 1-10; the second the sum of the sums of columns II - 20.
The third number is the chi square value for each subject. A negative sign
means the sum for columns 1 - 10 was greater than the sum for columns 11 - 20.
The p values the individual chi square values, df = 1, are as follows:
chi
square | p | 2.71 3.84 5.41 6.64 10.83 | .10 .05 .02 .01 .001 |
| 7. | The data for each subject for hypothesis 3
follows the letter “C” at the bottom of the page. The first number is the sum
of the squares of rows 1-10; the second, the sum of the sums of rows 11 - 20.
The third number is the chi square value for each subject. A negative sign
means the sum for rows 1 - 10 was greater than the sum for rows 11 - 20. The p
values are the same as in 6, above. |
Data
Subject
1
F
Subject
2
M
Subject
3
M
Subject
4
M
Subject
5
M
Subject
6
F
Subject
7
F
Subject
8
M
Subject
9
F
Subject
10 M
Subject
11 F
Subject
12 F
Subject
13 M
Subject
14 F
Subject
15 M
Subject
16 F
Subject
17 F
Subject
18 F
Subject
19 F
Subject
20 F
Subject
21 F
Subject
22 F
Subject
23 M
Subject
24 F
Subject
25 F
Subject
26 M
Subject
27 F
Subject
28 M
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Bannister, D. A genesis of schizophrenic thought disorder: a serial
invalidation hypothesis. British J. of Psychiatry. 1963, 109, 680-686.
2.
Bennion, R. C. A study of relative readiness for changing anticipations
following
discredit to situational behaviors: Hostility and the constellatoriness
of
personal constructs. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State Univer.,
1959.
3.
Bieri,
J. A study of the generalization of changes within the personal
construct
system. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Ohio State Univer., 1953.
4.
Binner, P. R. Permeability and complexity: Two dimensions of cognitive
structure and their relationship to behavior. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation,
Univer. of Colorado, 1958.
5.
Bonarius, J. C. J. Research in the Personal Construct Theory of George
A.
Kelly. In Progress in experimental personality research. Brendan A.
Maher (Ed).
Vol. II, New York: Academic Press, 1965 (In press).
6.
Cromwell, R. L. and Caldwell, D. F. A comparison of ratings based on
personal
constructs of self and others. J. clin. Psycho1., 1962, 18, 43-46.
7.
Flynn,
J, C, Cognitive complexity and construct constellatoriness as
antecedant
conditions of role variability. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State
Univer., 1959.
8.
Gottesman, L. E. The relationship of cognitive variables to therapeutic
ability
and training of client-centered therapists. J. consult. Psychol., 1962,
26,
119-125.
9.
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New
York:
"McGraw-Hill, 1950-;
10.
Hess,
Harrie F. Level of cognitive awareness: Its measurement and relation to
behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer. of Colorado, 1959.
11.
Howard A. R. Psychological change as revealed by self-descriptions.
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Univer., 1951. 108 109
12.
Howard, A. R., and Kelly, G. A. A theoretical approach to psychological
movement. J. abnorm, soc. Psychol,. 1954, 49, 399-404.
13.
Isaacson, G. The meaningfulness of personal and cultural constructs.
Unpublished
master's thesis, Univer. of Missouri, 1962.
14.
Jennings, C. L. Personal construct theory and the creativity cycle.
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Univer., 1963.
15.
Kelly, G. A. The psychology of personal constructs. 2 Vol. New York: W.
W.
Norton & Co., 1955.
16.
Kelly, G. A. Hostility. Presidential address, Clinical Division
American
Psychological Association, 1957, Unpublished.
17.
Kelly, G, A, Interdisciplinary collaboration. Presidential address,
Consulting
Division, American Psychological Association, 1957. Unpublished,
18.
Kelly, G. A. Personal construct theory and the psychotherapeutic
interview.
Unpublished manuscript, 1957.
19.
Kelly, G. A. The theory and technique of assessment. Annua1 Rev.
Psvchol.,
1958, 9, 323-352.
20.
Kelly, G. A. Man's construction of his alternatives. In G. Lindzey
(Ed.), The
assessment of human motives. New York: Rinehert, 1953.
21.
Kelly, G, A. The function of interpretation in psychotherapy. Three
unpublished
papers for institute sponsored by the Los Angeles Society of
Psychologists in
Private Practice and the U. of California at Los Angeles, Jan., 1959.
22.
Kelly, G. A. Is treatment a good idea? In Howard, A. R, (Ed.),
Therapeutic
roles in patient treatment. Sheridan, Wyoming: Veterans Admin.,
Hospital, l959
pp. 20-25,(mimeographed).
23.
Kelly, G. A. Theory and therapy in suicide: The personal point of view.
In
Shneidman and Farberow, (Ed.) The cry for help. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1961.
24.
Kelly, G. A. A mathematical approach to psychology. Address to Moscow
Psychological Society, 1961,
25.
Kelly, G. A. The abstraction of human processes. In Proceedings of the
XIV
International Congress of Applied Psychology, Vol. 2: Personality
Research. G.
S, Nielson and Stanley Coopersmith, eds. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1962.
110
26.
Kelly, G. A. Europe's matrix of decision. In Nebraska symposium on
motivation,,
1962. M. R. Jones, (Ed.) Lincoln: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1962,
27.
Kelly,
G. A. A further explanation of factor analysis. Unpublished manuscript,
The
Ohio State Univer., 1962.
28.
Kelly, G. A. Sin and psychotherapy. Temple University symposium of
psychotherapy, 1962, Unpublished MS, Ohio State Univer., 1962.
29.
Kelly, G. A. In whom confide? On whom depend for what? The fourth
annual Samuel
H. Flowerman Memorial Lecture presented to the New York Society of
Clinical
Psychologists on Dec. 7, 1962. Unpublished MS, Ohio State Univer.
30.
Kelly, G. A. Psychotherapy and the Nature of Man. Paper read at a
symposium on
the nature of man during meetings of the American Psychological Assoc.
in
Philadelphia, 1963.
31.
Kelly, G. A. Nonparametric factor analysis of personality theories, J.
Indiv.
Psychol., 1963, 19, 115-147
32.
Kelly, G. A. The language of hypothesis, J. Indiv, Psychol., 1964, 20,
137-152.
33.
Kelly, G. A. The autobiography of a theory. Unpublished MS, Ohio State
Univer.,
1964.
34.
Kelly, G. A. The psychology of the unknown. For proposed volume on the
philosophy
of science, Denis O1Donovan (Ed.).
35.
Kelly, G. A. The threat of aggression. Paper presented at Conference on
Humanistic Psychology, 1964.
36.
Kelly, G. A. The strategy of psychological research. Paper presented at
Brunel
College, London. Bulletin British Psychological Society. 1965, 18,
1-15.
37.
Kelly, G. A. A psychology of the optimal man. In forthcoming book, The
goals of
psychotherapy. A. Mahrer (Ed.).
38.
Kelly, J. V. A program for processing George Kelly's Rep Grids on the
IBM 1620
Computer. Unpublished MS, Ohio State Univer., 1963.
39.
Ladwig, G. A. Slot-movement under conditions of threat. Unpublished
master's
thesis, The Ohio State Univer., I960.
40.
Landfield, A. W. A study of threat within the psychology of personal
constructs.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State Univer., 1951. 111
41.
Landfield, A. W. A movement interpretation of threat. J, abnorm. soc.
Psychol.,
1954, 49, 529-532.
42.
Landfield, A. W. Self-predictive orientation and the movement
interpretation of
threat. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol, 1955, 51, 434-438.
43.
Landfield, A. W, The closeness of opposites. A synthesis and
reorientation. Unpublished
manuscript, Purdue Univer.
44.
Landfield, A. W., & Fjeld, S. P. Threat and self-predictability
with
predictability of others controlled: An addendum. Psychol. Rep., I960,
6,
333-334.
45.
Lemcke, Frances E. S. Some aspects of change process in personal
construct
systems. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Univer., 1959.
46.
Levy,
L. H. A study of the relative information value of constructs in
personal
construct theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Univer.,
1954.
47.
Levy,
L. H. Personal constructs and predictive behavior. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol..
1956, 51, 54-58.
48.
Lundy, R. M, Changes in interpersonal perceptions associated with group
psychotherapy. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State Univer., 1952.
49.
Lundy, R. M. Assimilative projection and accuracy of prediction in
interpersonal
perceptions. J, abnorm, soc. Psychol., 1956, 52, 34-38.
50.
Mitsos, S. B. Representative elements in role construct technique. J.
consult.
Psychol., 1958, 22, 311-313.
51.
Newman, D. K. A study of factors leading to change within the personal
construct system. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Univer.,
1956,
Dissertation Abstr., 1957, 17, 1597-1598.
52.
Pedersen, F. A. A consistency study of the R.C.R.T. Unpublished
master's
thesis, Ohio State Univer., 1958.
53.
Poch,
S. M. A study of changes in personal constructs as related to
interpersonal
prediction and its outcome. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State
Univer.,
1952.
54.
Resnick, J., and Landfield, A. W. The oppositional nature of
dichotomous
constructs. Psychol. Rec., 1961, 11, 47-55.
55.
Siege1, A. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New
York:
McGraw-Hill, 1956.
56,
Slater, P. The principal components of a repertory grid. 10 Blomfield
St.
London, EC 2.: Vincent Andrews & Co., 1965.
|
|
| | |
|
AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I,
Dennis
Neil Hinkle, was born in Akron, Ohio, June 21, 1935. I received my
secondary
education in the public schools of Texas, Florida, Missouri, Indiana,
and Ohio.
I attended Purdue University, Miami University, and following a period
of
service in the armed forces, I received the degree Bachelor of Arts in
1959 and
the degree Master of Arts in 1962 from The Ohio State University. While
enrolled
in the Graduate School I received appointments as a United States
Public Health
Fellow in 1960-61 and Teaching Assistant for the years 1961-62 and
1963-64. As
part of the training program in clinical psychology I completed a
one-year
internship at the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital, Palo
Alto,
California, in 1962-63. The requirements for the degree Doctor of
Philosophy
were completed in 1964-65 during an appointment as Psychology Trainee
at the
Veterans Administration Hospital, Chillicothe, Ohio. |
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT
THE
AUTHOR (2010)
Dennis Hinkle received his PhD in 1965 from
Ohio
State University. He studied with George A. Kelly from 1960 to 1965,
then
followed him to Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, where he remained
until
Kelly’s death in 1967. Dennis taught doctoral level psychology at
several universities
until 1975 when he established an independent practice in the San
Francisco Bay
area. Her was married for 20 years and fathered three sons. He is
blissfully
retired with his former graduate student and partner of 36 years. His
male
partner is also a clinical psychologist.
Email: garden@directcon.net
Correspondence
address:
Dennis
Hinkle
7610 Kona
Court,
Placerville,
CA, 95667, USA,
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Hinkle,
D. N. (2010). The
change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of
construct implications. (PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965).
Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 7, Suppl. No 1,
1-61, 2010
(Retrieved
from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp10/hinkle1965.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 10 Aug
2010 - Accepted: 12 Aug 2010 – Published 31 Aug 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|