VÍA DE LAS CIENCIAS DE LA SALUD

Hi nkle's i m plicati ons appro ach ·was develo ped primarily as a way of assessing construct re lationships as i ndicated by subjects t h e mselve s , whereas with t h e Rep G rid these re lati o n s hips are i n fe rred b y t h e i nvestigator f ro m simi larities i n elem ent al lot m e nts f o r 2 o r m o re dimensions. I n this way the basic differe nce between Hinkle and Kelly g rids lies in H i nkle's requirement for subjects to work at a superord i n ate leve l , while Kel ly requi red only ide ntification of more subo rdinate constructs fro m which superordinate relationships may later b e identified by stati stical analysis. Bannister and Mair ( 1 968) poi nt out that by usi n g "subject's prefere nces" , H i n kle used o n ly one of many possi ble approaches to g ai ni ng i nsight i nto supero rdinate co n structs and co nclude t h at fu rt h e r investigation o f other approaches cou ld b e o f considerable cli n ical i nte rest (see Bannister and Mair, 1 968, p. 94).

Both Kelly and Hi nkle were co ncerned to provide m et hods for esti mating li n kages betwee n the con struct dimensions u sed by an i ndividual. They diffe r i n that Kelly approached the problem indirectly , while Hi nkle asked his subjects directly. lt see ms that neither approach supplants the other, but rather supplements it.

Acc o rd i ng to Bannister and Mair ( 1 968) , Kelly's method may u ncover possible construct links of which the subject him o r he rse lf is unaware , while i n H l nkle's situation o n ly relationships con strued by the subject can appear. Bannister and Mai r i ndicate however that there is the possibi lity of i nferred li n ks when say a subject states that con struct 1 implies 2, 2 i mplies 6, and 6 implies 1 0. This establishes a potential in articulated link between 1 and 1 0. Specu latively we m ay redefi ne concepts such as "the unconscious" or " n o n -verbal co nstructs" in terms of second-order inte rrelationships t hat affect con stru i ng but wh ich are not articu lated by the subject ; they carry i m plicative weig ht but are not part of the person's se lf aware ness. Hinkle's syst e m may be preferable where an understanding is sought of what the i ndividual thi nks of his o r her own system, and m ay partially avoid an i n h e re nt danger in the Rep. G rid method, of infe rring relationships between constructs where no functional links exist for the subject him or herself.

4.3 Superordination - Subordi nation and " I mplications Procedu res" : Direct extensions of H i nkle.

From the review on previous pages, it is appare nt t hat "Superordi n ation - Subordination" emerg e s as an i m po rtant topic. The following sect i o n comprises a review of l iterature where issues re l ati ng t o Superordinatio n - S u bordi nation have been discussed an d/o r e labo rated from H i n kle's o riginal wo rk.

4.3. 1 . TH EOR ETICAL D ISCUSSIONS AN D EXTEN SIONS.

Landfield and Epting ( 1 987) refer -to a g ro u p of methods i n Pe rso nal Construct enquiry that share a co mmon intent to provide an understanding of how const ructs l i ne up i n supero rd i n ate-subord i n ate h i e rarc h i e s . Landfield & Epti ng refer t o these as "i mplications procedures". The hall m ark implicatio ns procedu re appears to be Ladde ri ng , which Boose ( 1 988) descri bed as a strategy fo r helpi ng people to build and refi ne hierarc hies wh ich al low for the di ssipati on of complex p rob le ms into pieces of co nvenient sized and simi lar levels of abstractio n.

lt is noted by Landfield & Epti ng ( 1 987) that this ordi nal aspect of syste m o rganisation has never been fully app reciated by psychologists. H i n kle ( 1 965) dealt substantially with t he questi on of construct su perordi nacy and Franse l la ( 1 972) operatio n ally defi ned supero rdination as a co n st ruct which had been "laddered" from another one ; an operational defi n itio n that was claimed to have experimental support fro m Hinkle.

One elabo ration of H i nkle's work co mes from Little ( 1 983) who relied heavily upon a Perso nal Co nstruct appro ach and who made use of modified g rid methodology. Little used Personal Projects, rather than roles, as the u nits of analysis or e lements. Personal projects are those things that

Little also borrowed fro m Hinkle i n the use of l addering i nvolvi ng "Why?" and "How?" questions. The te rm "VALU E LAD D E R ING" was assig ned by Little ( 1 983) to t h e p rocedu re of asking "Why are you engaged i n this p roject?" ; a p rocedure which was used to exami ne the exte nt to which people's projects are closely linked with s u perordinate values, goals and m otives to which they are comm itted. H e ass i g n ed the term "ACT LADDE R I NG" to the p rocedure of asking " How wi ll you be carrying o ut this p roject over the next few weeks?" ; a procedu re which was used to examine i ssues relating to behavioural load and t he extent to which i ndividuals phrase thei r projects at the level of molecu lar acts (for example, "putti ng out the cat") as o pposed to the level of mo lar phenomenon (for example, "transformi ng Western thought").

Little ( 1 983) construed Pe rso nal P rojects as middle leve l units wit h i n a co nceptual hie rarc hy of subordi nate acts and supero rdinate valu es as pri ncipal concerns. His use of "VALUE LAD D E R I NG" to refer to movement up the hierarchy as achieved by "Why?" questio n s and "ACT LADDE R I NG" to refe r to movement down the ladder by " How?" questions seems u seful, and hence these two di rections of ladderi ng wil l be referred to as such from this point onwards.

Landfield & Epti ng ( 1 987) have made extensive elaboratio n of H i n kle's methodology and h ave developed a number of thei r own im plications p rocedu res. These two p ractiti o ners express some reluctance about t he use of full-blooded Repertory G rid method, and it is i nteresting to note t hese authors' pe rvasive use of the term "Rep. Test" rather than "Rep. G rid." Landfield & Epti ng suggest that the practitioner use an abbreviated Rep. Test that g oes no fu rther than t he co nstruct e licitation stage, since ce rtain con struct methods such as Hinkle's ( 1 965) Laddering tech nique, and their own I m plicatio n s Assessments, Social D eci s i o n Tech nology, Py ramid P rocedure and FVB (Feeli ngs, Value & Behaviour) Analysi s , require only constructs.

FV B An alysi s, used to co n strue social contexts , is a close re lative of ladderi ng tech nique. H e re a pole of a co n st ruct is pre sented to an i ndividual who is then asked what a person c haracte rised by that pole wo u ld For exam p l e , if the construct was "warm vs. co ld" , the practitioner would ask "What does a warm person value?" The respo n se may be : "Friendship." Next, the practitioner asks how a person who values that response , may .fruU ; for example, "How does a perso n who values fri e ndship feel?" The client may respo nd : "Co mfortable." Thi rdly, the practitio n e r asks how a pe rso n who values t h e former response , would ; for example , "How does a perso n who values friendship, be have ?" The client's res ponse may be : " I n an e xtrave rted way, wi l l i ng to approach people, smiling and at ease ." We identify therefore , in this client, an ali g n ment of the concepts warmth, friendshi p , comfort and behavioural reflect i o n s of these as extrave rsi o n , appro achfu l n ess, s m i l i n g a nd psycholog ical ease.

While FVB Analysis elaborates from a construct, it o n ly hi nts at levels of superordinacy. Taki ng a lead from Act and Value Ladderi ng the leve l of the behavioural response could be co nstrued as subordi nate , and the level of the value analysis response con strued as supero rdinate.

Social Decision Tech nology ( Landfield & Epti ng , 1 987) i s mode l led on H i n kle's ( 1 965) Resistance to Change procedu re . Decision making i s the ce ntral theme of enqu i ry as opposed to H i n kle's ce ntral theme b e i ng resistance-wi llingness to change. Also, rather than respo nding to one pole of a con struct in preference to the other, the client conside rs the e nti re dime nsion and is required to make paired co mparison judgements as to which di mension is more impo rtant in decision maki ng procedures as t hey relate to a particular context. For example, usi ng the constructs "Warmth" (Warm vs. Cold) and " I ntellige nce" ( I ntelligent vs. u n i ntelligent) as the paired comparison, the practitioner may ask which of the two dimensions is more i mportant for maki ng com mercial decisio n s i n business. The subj ect may respond : "Intelligence". The procedure closely fol lows Resistance to C h a n g e G rid p rocedure and also u s e s t h e s a m e p re m i s e s a n d assumptions t o i nfer supe rordinacy.

Landfield & E pting ( 1 987) also describe a construct elicitation procedure, the ve ry title of which suggests an enquiry i nto the hierarchical o rgani sation of constructs : Pyramid Procedu re. This procedu re exploits the notions of simi larity and diffe re nce i n e li citing co nstructs from p revi ously derived constructs. Agai n, we will use "Warm vs. Cold" as a sample i n itial construct derived from Role Repe rto ry Test. The client is fi rstly asked a sim i larity question about one pole of the co nst ruct : "What sort of perso n is warm ?". The client may respond : "A frie ndly perso n". The client is then asked a differe nce qu estion based on that re sponse : "What so rt of person i s not frie ndly?". The client's response may be : "A hostile person". Atte ntion would then be turned to the other pole of the initial construct, i n this case "Cold", and the procedu re repeated. The clie nt may respo nd t hat a " Co ld person i s u n reasonable," and the co nve rse of this is "A perso n who i s reasonable". Landfield and Epti ng clai m that i n t h i s fashion a second level of associated constructs have been -elicited : "Friendly vs. Hostile" and " U n reasonable vs. Reaso nable". The process is repeated u si ng both of t hese seco n d level constructs ; that i s , with e ach of the fou r polar respo n ses. T h i s elicits a third leve l of associated co nst ructs. A l i ke ly depiction of this structure, based on the "Warm vs. Cold" example, above , is produced in Fig .4.3.

level 1 :

level 2: <--->hostile u nreasonable--->

level 3 : .hapm:-u nhappy : anxious-� : : minded.

Figure 4_3_ Pyramid Procedure, based on Landfield & Epting ( 1 987) using the construct "Warm vs. Cold" as the initial example.

produces syno nyms or near equivalents and identifies con st ruct co nte nt re lationships. lt does not however make explicit the levels of superordinacy. lt is i n e ffect a cli ni cal i nterview tech nique desig ned to e n rich t he i n formation g ained from the client, but we do not know which is the more superordinate ; "Warm" or "Friendly".

To provide so me information about superordinacy - subord i nacy , Landfi eld & Epti ng ( 1 987) suggest a further optional procedu re that can be appended to Pyramid P rocedu re. The additional procedu re is similar to Act Laddering in that the client is asked "How?"and "Whe n?" style questio n s in re lation to their level 2 and 3 responses. The client is asked either a few or all of the fol lowing questions : "How would you know that a pe rson is characterised by this pole?", "How would you know if a person was not characte rised by this pole?", "When would a pe rson be characterised by this pole?", "When would a pe rson not be characterised by this pole?", "What would a person say , do, think or feel if (if not) characterised by this pole ?"

Followin g fro m the exam ple in Figure 4.3, above , the cli e nt may respond that he might recog n ise a friendly person if they we re smi l i n g , and recognise a u nfriendly person if they avoided eye co ntact. A perso n may be frie ndly on occasions when they a re prese nted with no threat, and may be u nfriendly when someone i nvades their territory in so me way , or when they are ill at ease with the wo rld i n general. A friendly p e rson may say encouraging things, approach people, think all people a re basically good, and feel comfortable. An u nfriendly person mig ht say insulting things, may use agg ressive mannerisms, think the world is ag ainst them and feel anxio us. From this example, we can see that some leve l of subordi nate behavioural and situational compone ntry has been elicited.

A type of implications procedure deve loped by G ai nes & Shaw ( 1 981 ) is known as E ntai lment. E ntai lments are derived fro m i mplications, but are log ical i m p l ications t h at are t rue for all eleme nts cu rre ntly u n d e r consideration. A s such e ntailments perfo rm a s do sufficient co nditions.

Gaines & Shaw cite the relationship between the co nstructs " ru ns vs. does not ru n" and "energetic vs. passive". lt is a true proposition that a person who ru n s m u st also be e ne rg etic, hence the " ru ns" pole of the fo rmer construct entai ls the "energetic" pole of the latter. But, the converse does not n ecessari ly apply : it does not necessari ly e ntai l t hat an energetic person will also run , (he or she may dance , cycle or build houses) . Gai nes & Shaw state that it is simple to derive the entailment structure between poles of con structs since we need o nly check the truth of the four possible i mplications for all elements u sed in the clients Rep. Test. If all elements rated o n the g rid as run ners are also rated as energetic then run ni ng entails e n e rg etic. O n ly if this is reci procated i n all cases will e ne rgetic e ntai l running. For example t here may be some cases on the client's grid where people rated as energetic we re not also rated as bei ng runners.

Gaines and Shaw ( 1 981 , p. 1 60 ) provide a case study of a client who rated five acquaintances #5, 6 , 7, 9 & 1 1 as "Artistic" and rated six acquaintances #5, 6 , 7 , 9 , 1 0 & 1 1 as "Creative". Si nce all five acquai ntances who were rated as artistic were also rated as creative , for this cli e nt "Artistic" entai ls "Creative" . Note t hat acquai ntance #1 0 was not rated as both artistic and creative and therefore the converse does not apply : "Creative" does not entail "Artistic".

The p roduct of the entai lment p rocedure is an Entai lment N et ( a g raphic n etwo rk of co nstructs and t h e i r linkages) deri ved t h roug h analysing i m p li catio nal li nks. An abbreviated Entailment Net for the case study cited above is reproduced in Figure 4.4. The text of the net represents construct poles and the numbers below the text rep resent the acquai ntances of the client rated in accordance with that pole. The arrow i ndicates the di rection of the e ntailment. Figure 4.4 i n dicates that for this client, " I ndividualistic" e ntai led " Fantastical" and "Co mpassionate". "Compassio nate" i n turn did not e ntail any other co nstruct pole , while "Fantastical" e ntai led "Arti stic", "Generous" and "Cares for detail". "Artistic" and "Generous" were applied to an identical set of acquai ntances and he nce e ntailed o n e another. Both t hese and "Cares for detai l" entailed "Creative"

5,6,7,911

5,6,7,11 �6,7,9,11 5,6,7,9,10,11

5,6, 11

Compassionate Cares tor detail

1,5,6,11

5,6,7,10,11

Figure 4.4 : Abbreviated reproduction of an Entailment Net from Gaines

(1981,

160).

Gai nes & Shaw ( 1 981 ) clai m that the di rected entailment depict i o n is