8.1 CAPTURING PERSONAL VALUES
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131
The last time you elicited a repertory grid, you may have noticed that some
constructs seemed to be rather more important to your interviewee than
others. Just a feeling you got from the energy with which s/he expressed
them, or from the kinds of implications that seemed to follow from the way in
which s/he used them.
You may have deliberately used the techniques of laddering down
(introduced in Section 3.2.3 and developed in Section 4.4.1 as a way of
expressing constructs in more specific, behaviourally defined detail) and
of pyramiding (outlined in Section 4.4.2 as a way of identifying a variety of
different, more detailed aspects of a given construct: while you’re at it, take
another look at Figure 4.1). You might have wondered: if constructs can be
8.1 Capturing Personal Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
8.2 Prioritising Personal Values: Resistance-to-
Change Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Things to Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Things to Read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
laddered down so that they’re more precise and detailed, can they be laddered
up to arrive at more general variants? If constructs can ‘contain’ more specific
ones, can they themselves be contained within superordinate ones; is there a
hierarchy operating?
Indeed there is, andit’s given animportant status in Kelly’spersonal construct theory.
Namely, personal constructs do not operate in isolation fromeach other, but forman
integrated system. He expressed this formally as the ‘Organisation Corollary’: ‘Each
person characteristically evolves for his experience in anticipating events, a
construction system embracing ordinal relationships between constructs.’ You can
look at this in twoways, in terms of implied meaning, or in terms of structure.
A construct can be superordinate, because, when a person uses it to make a particular
statement about a set of elements, s/he is also making a number of other,
implied, statementswhich follow fromit.
warm ^ cold
friendly ^ unfriendly untrustworthy ^ trustworthy
Here, forexample, inagridwhosetopicis‘people Iknow’, you’vepyramided the superordinate
construct ‘warm^cold’ into two subordinate constructs, so you discover that
for this individual, themeaning of ‘warm’ implies friendliness and trustworthiness; or,
conversely and equivalently, themeaning of ‘cold’ implies unfriendliness and untrustworthiness.
Now, if your interviewee changed their mind about a particular person’s standing on
the ‘warm^cold’ dimension, s/he might give a different rating on the ‘friendly ^
unfriendly’ and ‘trustworthy^untrustworthy’ constructs as well. To the extent that
change in one construct is implied by change in another, there is a structural
connection between the constructs. So, if you asked your interviewee which
construct would change if ratings on‘warm^cold’changed, s/hemight reply,‘Well, by
and large, people who’re warm tend to be friendly, but the connection to their trustworthiness
isn’t as strong; sometimes warm people can be untrustworthy, after all’.
This is actuallya complex issue, and I’mchoosingmy wordswith some simplification.
It hingesonthe extent towhich thereare different ‘flavours’of contrastingimplicit poles
for any single emergent pole. If you want to pursue this further, read Riemann (1990)
for an empirically based study, or Yorke (1978) for some implications for educational
research.However, let’s keep it simple for themoment.
There is awell-developed formof grid called an‘Implications grid’, which can be used
to identify the shape of the data structure, and hence the way in whichmeanings are
organised in a person’s construct system. It was first described by Hinkle (1965), and
you can learn about it most conveniently in Fransella et al. (2004). There are also
two different ways in which constructs can be in a superordinate^subordinate
relationship to one another. Your best way of learning more about this is to read
Kelly’s original account of what he calls ‘abstracting across’ and ‘extending’ the
‘cleavage’of a superordinate construct; see Kelly (1963: 57^58).
Let’s keep it simple, then, for the moment. A set of constructs on any topic is
part of a broader system of constructs, a system that forms a hierarchy. Some
constructs are superordinate, and others subordinate, to each other, and the
simple repertory grid which you learnt about in Chapter 3 simply taps into
part of that hierarchy.
Constructs towards the top of the hierarchy:
. are more general in their relevance; they usually have a wide range of
convenience;
. express personal preferences more strongly; they tend to be more valueladen;
. may relate to fundamental beliefs about oneself and one’s place in existence;
these are known as core constructs;
. to the extent that they are personally central in this way, are likely to be
resistant to change.
You’ve encountered this issue already, during the discussion of core versus
peripheral constructs in Section 5.3.3.