|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PERSONAL CONSTRUCT
PSYCHOLOGY: THE FIRST HALF-CENTURY |
|
|
David A. Winter
|
|
|
University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
& Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust, UK |
|
|
|
|
|
Two people were highly influential in my
development as a personal construct psychologist, Don Bannister and Fay
Fransella. In the late 1960s Don toured British university Psychology
Societies
providing students with what was often their first introduction to a
psychology
which provided a radical alternative to what was taught on their
undergraduate
courses. Psychology could actually be about people rather than rats and
pigeons, and not only that but people could actively make choices about
their
worlds rather than being passive victims of their conditioning,
libidinal forces,
or their biochemistry. This was particularly apparent in Don’s
pioneering work
on schizophrenic thought disorder, on which he later collaborated with
Fay, and
which indicated that people with this diagnosis employ the same
strategies to
avoid invalidation of their construing as does anyone else, albeit more
extremely (Bannister, 1960, 1962). On hearing Don talk about this work,
it occurred
to me that a major problem with it was that the repertory grid that he
used employed
supplied constructs rather than personal constructs elicited from the
individuals concerned. I therefore resolved for my undergraduate
dissertation
to replicate Don’s study using not only his original grid but one which
used
elicited constructs, finding that clients diagnosed as schizophrenic
were
differentiated from non-clients by Don’s grid but not by the grid using
their
own personal constructs (Winter, 1971). Enthused by these results, two
years
later during my clinical psychology training I carried out a similar
study but
this time comparing the parents of clients diagnosed as schizophrenic
with
those of other clients, and finding again that they could be
differentiated by
Don’s and Fay’s original grid but not by a grid using elicited
constructs
(Winter, 1975). Furthermore, the looser the construing of the
schizophrenic
clients, the looser that of their parents. It was around this time that
Don and
Fay reaffirmed my passion for personal construct psychology with the
publication of Inquiring Man
(Bannister & Fransella, 1971), which for me is still the most
powerful
introduction to the theory. One always remembers where one was on the
days of
significant events – John Kennedy’s assassination, Princess Diana’s car
crash, 9/11,
etc., and I still have a strong memory of where I was when I first
started reading Inquiring Man – on the upper deck of
a bus in Newcastle in 1971. I am generally very careful with my books but
my original
copy of Inquiring Man is so well used
that it now consists of loose pages held together by sellotape.
Inquiring
Man was soon followed by another of Fay’s
publications that had a major impact on me, Personal
Change and Reconstruction (Fransella, 1972). Not only was this the
first
major empirical demonstration of a link predicted by the theory between
construing and a particular type of behaviour, stuttering, it also
presented a
therapeutic approach developed from PCP. Much of my own later work was
inspired
by this book. This has included the development and empirical
evaluation of
personal construct theoretical models and therapeutic approaches for
particular
clinical problems, including agoraphobia (Winter et al., 2006),
deliberate self
harm (Winter et al., 2007a), and psychosexual problems (Winter, 1988),
as well
as the development of repertory grid technique as a psychotherapy
outcome
measure (Winter, 2003). One of my particular concerns has been to
attempt to
extend the boundaries of personal construct psychology, for example by
applying
it to clinical problems with which its use had not previously been
reported,
including exploring the limits of Kelly’s credulous approach by
attempting to
construe the construction processes of serial killers (Winter, 2007;
Winter et
al., 2007b).
There is no time to share with you the
details of this work, but what I would like to do is to give you a
flavour of a
recent review that I have carried out with Beverly Walker, from the
University
of Wollongong, Australia, another psychologist who was highly
influenced by Fay
(Walker & Winter, 2007). Some years ago – in the student bar in
Wollongong –
Beverly suggested to me that we write a review of developments in
personal
construct psychology in the half century since Kelly published his
theory, and
I had the crazy idea that in an attempt to obtain a wide audience for
these
developments we should seek to publish the paper in the Annual
Review of Psychology, which for those of you who are unfamiliar
with such things is the psychology journal which has the highest impact
factor.
On contacting the editor, we discovered that one does not submit papers
to this
journal but that instead selected authors are invited to write papers
on areas
identified by the editorial team. Nevertheless, despite our
impertinence in
approaching the editor directly, she was interested in our idea and
agreed to take
it to the team which would in due course consider the contents of the
2007
issue of the journal. Much to our amazement, some nine months later we
heard
that the journal wished to commission our paper, and we were then faced
with
the daunting task of reviewing 50 years of developments in personal
construct
psychology. As an aid to prioritising work to review from the thousands
of
publications during this time, we asked several leading personal
construct
psychologists to list five major developments over this period. 18
generously
gave of their time to send responses.
We divided our review into the areas of
theory, methods, and applications. In regard to theory, some of the
post-1955
elaborations of PCP were by Kelly himself, largely in the selection of
his
papers edited by Brendan Maher (1969). However, the theoretical
development
most frequently cited by the personal construct psychologists we
surveyed was
the doctoral dissertation of Kelly’s student, Dennis Hinkle (1965),
with its
demonstration that constructs with the most implications are the most
resistant
to change. Other theoretical elaborations have concerned
self-construing, for
example Miller Mair’s (1977) notion of a community of selves; the
development
of personal construct psychology as a social psychology, in which Harry
Procter’s family construct psychology (1981) has been particularly
influential;
the extension by Mildred McCoy (1977) of Kelly’s personal construct
classification of emotions; the elaboration of links with other
theoretical positions,
particularly cognitive approaches, humanistic psychology, and
constructivism;
and research testing out aspects of the theory, in which we have
singled out
studies (Millis & Neimeyer, 1991; Riemann, 1990) that support the
notion
that constructs are bipolar, although not necessarily strictly
dichotomous.
Developments in personal construct
assessment techniques have also been extensive, including the
bewildering
variety of methods of repertory grid technique and its analysis that
have been
devised over the last 50 years, most of which are reviewed in another
of Fay’s
major publications, the Manual for
Repertory Grid Technique, co-authored with Richard Bell and Don
Bannister
(Fransella, Bell & Bannister, 2004). However, developments in
assessment
methods extend beyond grids, including laddering and pyramiding for the
tracing
of superordinate and subordinate implications of constructs (Hinkle,
1965;
Landfield, 1971); Finn Tschudi’s (1977) ABC technique for the
exploration of
impediments to movement; variations on the self-characterisation
technique,
including the conversion of written texts into grids (Feixas &
Villegas,
1991); interview procedures; methods for the content analysis of
constructs
(Feixas, Geldschläger & Neimeyer, 2002 ; Landfield, 1971);
questionnaire
measures of personal construct processes (Chambers & O’Day, 1984;
Theodoulou, 1996); and visual techniques, including the use of
psychophotography
(Hanieh & Walker, 2007).
Developments in the application of the
theory have primarily been in the clinical, educational, and
organisational
settings but are by no means limited to these settings. In the clinical
sphere,
there has been elaboration of Kelly’s view of disorder and the
derivation of
personal construct models of various clinical problems (Winter, 1992).
There
have also been numerous repertory grid studies of psychotherapy, the
development of different approaches to personal construct psychotherapy
(Winter
& Viney, 2005), including methods developed for use with particular
disorders,
and the gradual amassing of an evidence base for personal construct
psychotherapy. While the notion of an evidence base is anathema for
some
personal construct theorists, in my view it is crucial for the survival
of our
therapeutic approach in the current climate, and I want to mention
briefly some
of the work in which I have been involved that I think is important in
this
regard. Firstly, in a study with Sue Watson (Winter & Watson,
1999), we
found the treatment process in personal construct psychotherapy to be
significantly different to that in rationalist cognitive therapy by
applying
therapy process scales to transcripts of sessions of the two types of
therapy
and by giving the transcripts to Fay Fransella and to a leading
cognitive
therapist, Windy Dryden, who were asked blindly to identify which were
examples
of which type of therapy. They were able to do this with a very high
level of
accuracy – although I have to say that Windy did wrongly classify a
transcript
of one of my sessions as cognitive therapy, but wrote on it "not very
good
cognitive therapy". I think I can live with this better than being
called a
good cognitive therapist! Another piece of work in which I have been
involved,
together with Chris Metcalfe and Linda Viney, has been a meta-analysis
of
outcome studies of personal construct psychotherapy (Metcalfe, Winter
&
Viney, 2007; Viney, Metcalfe & Winter, 2005). For those of you who
are not
familiar with meta-analysis, it is a way of statistically aggregating
the
findings of a number of studies, and it has allowed us to provide
strong
evidence that personal construct psychotherapy is considerably more
effective
than no treatment and at least as effective as other forms of therapy,
including those recommended in such sources as the NICE guidelines,
with which
those of you who work in the clinical field in the UK are likely to be
very
familiar (for those who are not familiar with NICE, it stands for the
National
Institute of Clinical Excellence). One of my main aims is to make the
NICE
guidelines nicer by the inclusion in them of personal construct
psychotherapy!
Moving on to applications in the
educational field, personal construct psychology has been elaborated as
a
psychology of personal growth and developed as an educational
psychology. Sadly,
three of the major figures involved in this work, Phil Salmon, Jim
Mancuso, and
Tom Ravenette (Mancuso, 2003; Ravenette, 1999; Salmon, 1970), all died
last
year. There has also been a considerable amount of work on the
exploration of
meaning in the learning process, much of this by Maureen Pope and Pam
Denicolo
(Pope & Denicolo, 2001). In the organisational setting, personal
construct
theorists have been concerned to work with individuals in the
organisation, for
example by coaching, counselling, and vocational guidance; and with the
organisation itself, which can be considered to have a corporate
construct
system that it is important to explore in situations of team building
and
conflict resolution. Leading lights in this work, in addition to Fay
herself,
have been Sean Brophy, Helen Jones, Devi Jankowicz, and Mary Frances
(Brophy,
Fransella, & Reed, 2003; Frances, 1999; Fransella, Jones, &
Watson,
1988; Jankowicz, 1990). Amongst the numerous other areas of application
of
personal construct psychology, some of which we shall hear about from
other
speakers, are the arts, sport, politics, and forensic psychology (e.g.
Fransella, 2003).
Kelly (1955/1991) himself set out a list
of
design specifications for a psychological theory, and it is therefore
possible to
evaluate personal construct psychology reflexively against these
criteria.
There is no time to consider this evaluation in detail but suffice it
to say
that, as indicated in Figure 1, the theory is holding up very well
except in
one area, its ultimate expendability. I suspect, though, that Fay might
say
that this is likely to occur by it eventually being subsumed by
constructivism,
and I consider that this is an area that merits further exploration. I
would
suggest that other profitable future directions are further research
investigation of aspects of Kelly’s theory, such as his notion of
choice; the
development of methods of assessment of construct processes; further
elaboration of the personal construct psychology view of disorder; and
development of the evidence base for the range of applications of
personal
construct psychology.
Appropriateness
of focus and range of convenience
Focus on
‘psychological reconstruction of life’ demonstrated in elaborations of
personal
construct psychotherapy
Wide range of
convenience demonstrated in other applications
Fertility
Generation of
new methods, research programmes, and applications
Production
of testable hypotheses
Numerous
hypotheses have been developed and tested.
Validity
Several of these hypotheses have received research
support.
Generality
Abstractness of
theory’s concepts has given generality extending beyond clinical realm
and
original historical context.
Amenability
to operational definition
PCP concepts
have been operationally defined, often using assessment methods
developed from
the theory.
Modifiability
and ultimate expendability
Little or no
modification of the theory, perhaps indicating its viability, but
possible expendability
by integration with other approaches.
Avoidance
of problems due to assumptions of mental energy
Lack of concepts
of mental energy has not hampered explanatory power.
Ability
to account for people’s choices
Empirical
support for theory’s view of choice, which enables understanding of
choices
that may seem self-defeating or destructive from other perspectives.
Recognition
of individuality
Plentiful
idiographic applications of the theory are complemented by nomothetic
applications,
e.g. investigations of the construing of particular groups.
|
Figure
1. A
reflexive evaluation of personal construct psychology
In the time available today I have been
able to provide you with no more than a flavour of elaborations of
personal
construct psychology over the years but we are privileged to have with
us experts
in most of the fields that I have mentioned, who I am sure will give
you a more
substantial taste of developments in the
areas concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
|
Bannister, D. (1960). Conceptual structure
in thought-disordered schizophrenics. Journal
of Mental Science, 106, 1230-49.
Bannister, D. (1962). The nature and
measurement of schizophrenic thought disorder. Journal of
Mental Science, 108,
825-42.
Bannister, D. & Fransella, F.
(1971). Inquiring Man. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Brophy, S., Fransella, F., & Reed,
N. (2003).
The power of a good theory. In F. Fransella (ed.), International
handbook of personal construct psychology, (pp.
329-38). Chichester: Wiley.
Chambers, W.V. & O’Day, P. (1984). A
nomothetic view of personal construct processes. Psychological
Reports, 55,
554.
Feixas, G., Geldschläger, &
Neimeyer,
R.A. (2002). Content analysis of personal constructs. Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 1-20.
Feixas, G. & Villegas, M. (1991).
Personal construct analysis of autobiographical texts: a method
presentation
and case illustration. International
Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 4, 51-83.
Frances, M. (1999). Culture and change in organizations - a PCP
approach.
In J.M. Fisher and D.J. Savage (eds.), Beyond
Experimentation into Meaning, (pp. 219-25). Farnborough: EPCA
Publications.
Fransella, F. (1972). Personal
change and reconstruction: Research on a treatment of stuttering. London:
Academic Press.
Fransella, F. (ed.) (2003). International
handbook of personal construct
psychology. Chichester: Wiley.
Fransella, F., Bell,
R., & Bannister,
D. (2004). A manual for repertory grid
technique (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Fransella, F., Jones, H., & Watson,
J.
(1988). A range of applications of PCP within business and industry.
In. F.
Fransella and L. Thomas (eds.), Experimenting
with personal construct psychology, (pp. 405-17). London:
Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Hinkle, D.N. (1965). The change of
personal
constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University.
Jankowicz, A.D. (1990). Applications of
personal construct psychology in business practice. In G.J. Neimeyer
& R.A.
Neimeyer (eds.), Advances in personal
construct
psychology, vol. 1, (pp. 257-87). Greenwich, CT; JAI
Press.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The
psychology of personal constructs. New York:
Norton (republished
by Routledge, 1991).
Landfield, A.W. (1971). Personal
construct systems in psychotherapy. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
McCoy, M.M. (1977). A reconstruction of
emotion. In D. Bannister (ed.), New perspectives
in personal construct theory, (pp. 93-124). London:
Academic
Press.
Maher, B. (ed.) (1969). Clinical
psychology and personality: The collected
papers of George Kelly. New York:
Wiley.
Mair, J.M.M. (1977). The community of
self.
In D. Bannister (ed.), New perspectives in
personal construct theory, (pp. 125-49). London;
Academic
Press.
Mancuso, J.C. (2003). Children’s
development of personal constructs. In F. Fransella (ed.), International
handbook of personal construct psychology, (pp.
275-82). Chichester: Wiley.
Metcalfe, C., Winter, D.A., & Viney,
L.L. (2007). The effectiveness of personal construct psychotherapy in
clinical
practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychotherapy
Research, in press.
Millis, K.K. &
Neimeyer, R.A. (1990). A test of the
dichotomy
corollary: propositions versus constructs as basic cognitive units. International Journal of Personal Construct
Psychology, 3, 167-81.
Pope, M. & Denicolo, P.M. (2001). Transformative
education: Personal construct approaches to practice and
research. London: Whurr.
Procter, H.G. (1981). Family construct
psychology: an approach to understanding and treating families. In S.
Walrond-Skinner (ed.), Developments in family
therapy, (pp. 350-66). London:
Routledge.
Ravenette, A.T. (1999). Personal
construct theory in educational
psychology: A practitioner’s view. London:
Whur.
Riemann, R. (1990). The bipolarity of
personal constructs. International
Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 3, 149-65.
Salmon, P. (1970). A psychology of
personal
growth. In D. Bannister (ed.), Perspectives
in personal construct theory, (pp. 197-221). London:
Academic
Press.
Theodoulou, S. (1996). Construing
economic
and political reality. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 17, 400-441.
Tschudi, F. (1977). Loaded and honest
questions: a personal construct view of symptoms and therapy. In D.
Bannister
(ed.), New Perspectives in personal
construct theory, (pp. 321-50). London:
Academic
Press.
Viney, L.L., Metcalfe, C., & Winter, D.A. (2005).
The effectiveness of personal construct psychotherapy: a meta-analysis.
In D.A.
Winter & L.L. Viney (eds.), Personal construct
psychotherapy: Advances in theory, practice and research, (pp.
347-64). London: Whurr.
Walker, B.M. & Winter, D.A. (2007).
The
elaboration of personal construct psychology. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58,
in press.
Winter, D.A. (1971). The meaningfulness of
personal and supplied constructs to chronic schizophrenics and normals.
Unpublished B.Sc. thesis, University of Durham.
Winter, D.A. (1975). Some
characteristics
of schizophrenics and their parents. British
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14,
279-90.
Winter, D.A. (1988). Reconstructing an
erection and elaborating ejaculation.
International
Journal of Personal Construct Psychology,
1, 81-99.
Winter, D.A. (1992). Personal
construct psychology in clinical practice: Theory, research
and applications. London: Routledge.
Winter, D.A. (2003). Repertory grid
technique as a psychotherapy research measure. Psychotherapy
Research, 13,
25-42.
Winter, D.A. (2007). Construing the
construction processes of serial killers and other violent offenders:
2. The
limits of credulity. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, in press.
Winter, D.A., Feixas, G., Dalton,
R., Jarque-Llamazares,
L., Laso, E., Mallindine, C., & Patient, S. (2007b). Construing the construction
processes of
serial killers and other violent offenders: 1. The analysis of
narratives. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, in
press.
Winter, D., Gournay, K., Metcalfe, C., & Rossoti, N. (2006).
Expanding agoraphobics’ horizons: An investigation of the effectiveness
of a
personal construct psychotherapy intervention. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 19, 1-30.
Winter, D.A., Sireling, L., Riley, T.,
Metcalfe, C., Quaite, A., & Bhandari, S. (2007a). A controlled trial of personal
construct
psychotherapy for deliberate self-harm. Psychology
and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, in press.
Winter, D.A. & Watson, S. (1999). Personal construct
psychotherapy and the cognitive therapies: Different in theory but can
they be
differentiated in practice? Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 12,
1-22.
Winter, D.A. & Viney, L.L. (2005). Personal construct psychotherapy. Advances
in theory, practice and research. London:
Whurr. |
|
|
|
|
|
The article is based
on a talk given at the conference on 'PCP: a personal story' organised
by
the Centre for Personal Construct at the University of Hertfordshire, UK,
on September 29, 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT THE
AUTHOR
David
Winter is Professor of Clinical Psychology and Programme
Director of the
Doctorate in Clinical Psychology at the University
of Hertfordshire
and Head of
Clinical
Psychology Services for Barnet in Barnet, Enfield
and Haringey Mental Health
National Health Service Trust. He has worked in the British National
Health
Service for 35 years, applying personal construct psychology in his
clinical
practice and research, and has over 100 publications in this area and
on
psychotherapy research, including Personal
Construct Psychology in Clinical
Practice: Theory, Research and Applications (1992/4; Routledge)
and Personal
Construct Psychotherapy: Advances in Theory, Practice and Research
(with Linda
Viney; 2005; Whurr/Wiley). He is a Fellow of the British Psychological
Society
and has chaired its Psychotherapy Section. He is registered as a
personal
construct psychotherapist with the UK Council for Psychotherapy and
chairs the
Council’s Research Committee. He is also a Director of the Centre for
Personal
Construct Psychology. E-mail: d.winter@herts.ac.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Winter,
D. A. (2007). Personal construct psychology: The first half-century. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 4, 3-8
(Retrieved
from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp07/winter07.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 16 January 2007 – Accepted: 20 January
2007 –
Published: 31 January 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|