568 Part VI Learning-Cognitive Theories
A
rlene, a 21-year-old college student majoring in engineering, was balancing a
heavy academic schedule with a full-time job. Her life suddenly became even
more hectic when her 10-year-old car broke down. Now she faces an important
decision. As she interprets her world, she sees that she has several choices. She
could have her old car repaired; she could borrow money to purchase a nearly new
used car; she could walk to and from school and work; she could ask friends for
transportation; she could quit school and move back home with her parents; or she
could choose among several other options.
The process by which Arlene (or anyone) makes a decision is comparable to
those processes followed by scientists when they approach a problem. Like a good
scientist, Arlene followed several steps of decision making. First, she observed her
environment (“I see that my car won’t run”). Next, she asked questions (“How
can I stay in school and keep my job if my car won’t run?” “Should I have my
old car repaired?” “Should I buy a newer car?” “What other options do I have?”).
Third, she anticipated answers (“I can have my old car fixed, buy a newer one,
rely on friends for transportation, or quit school”). Fourth, she perceived relation-
ships between events (“Quitting school would mean moving back home, postpon-
ing or giving up my goal of becoming an engineer, and losing much of my
independence”). Fifth, she hypothesized about possible solutions to her dilemma
(“If I have my old car repaired, it might cost more than the car is worth, but if I
buy a late-model used one, I’ll have to borrow money”). Sixth, she asked more
questions (“If I buy a different car, what make, model, and color do I want?”).
Next, she predicted potential outcomes (“If I buy a reliable car, I will be able to
stay in school and continue my job”). And finally, she attempted to control events
(“By purchasing this car, I will be free to drive to work and earn enough money
to stay in school”). Later, we return to Arlene’s dilemma, but first we look at an
overview of personal construct theory as postulated by George Kelly.Overview of Personal Construct Theory
George Kelly’s theory of personal constructs is like no other personality theory. It
has been variously called a cognitive theory, a behavioral theory, an existential
theory, and a phenomenological theory. Yet it is none of these. Perhaps the most
appropriate term is “metatheory,” or a theory about theories. According to Kelly,
all people (including those who build personality theories) anticipate events by
the meanings or interpretations they place on those events (Stevens & Walker,
2002). These meanings or interpretations are called constructs. People exist in a
real world, but their behavior is shaped by their gradually expanding interpretation
or construction of that world. They construe the world in their own way, and every
construction is open to revision or replacement. People are not victims of circum-
stances, because alternative constructions are always available. Kelly called this
philosophical position constructive alternativism.
Constructive alternativism is implied by Kelly’s theory of personal con-
structs, a theory he expressed in one basic postulate and 11 supporting corollaries.
The basic postulate assumes that people are constantly active and that their activ-
ity is guided by the way they anticipate events.