572 Part VI Learning-Cognitive Theories
In other words, people always have alternative ways of looking at things.
Kelly (1963) assumed “that all of our present interpretations of the universe are
subject to revision or replacement” (p. 15). He referred to this assumption as
constructive alternativism and summed up the notion with these words: “The
events we face today are subject to as great a variety of constructions as our wits
will enable us to contrive” (Kelly, 1970, p. 1). The philosophy of constructive
alternativism assumes that the piece-by-piece accumulation of facts does not add
up to truth; rather, it assumes that facts can be looked at from different perspec-
tives. Kelly agreed with Adler (see Chapter 3) that a person’s interpretation of
events is more important than the events themselves. In contrast to Adler, however,
Kelly stressed the notion that interpretations have meaning in the dimension of
time, and what is valid at one time becomes false when construed differently at a
later time. For example, when Freud (see Chapter 2) originally heard his patients’
accounts of childhood seduction, he believed that early sexual experiences were
responsible for later hysterical reactions. If Freud had continued to construe his
patients’ reports in this fashion, the entire history of psychoanalysis would have
been quite different. But then, for a variety of reasons, Freud restructured his data
and gave up his seduction hypothesis. Shortly thereafter, he tilted the picture a
little and saw a very different view. With this new view, he concluded that these
seduction reports were merely childhood fantasies. His alternative hypothesis was
the Oedipus complex, a concept that permeates current psychoanalytic theory, and
one that is 180 degrees removed from his original seduction theory. If we view
Freud’s observations from yet another angle, such as Erikson’s perspective (see
Chapter 7), then we might reach a still different conclusion.
Kelly believed that the person, not the facts, holds the key to an individual’s
future. Facts and events do not dictate conclusions; rather, they carry meanings for
us to discover. We are all constantly faced with alternatives, which we can explore
if we choose, but in any case, we must assume responsibility for how we construe
our worlds. We are victims of neither our history nor our present circumstances.
That is not to say that we can make of our world whatever we wish. We are “lim-
ited by our feeble wits and our timid reliance upon what is familiar” (Kelly, 1970,
p. 3). We do not always welcome new ideas. Like scientists in general and per-
sonality theorists in particular, we often find restructuring disturbing and thus hold
on to ideas that are comfortable and theories that are well established.Personal Constructs
Kelly’s philosophy assumes that people’s interpretation of a unified, ever-changing
world constitutes their reality. In the chapter opener, we introduced Arlene, the
student with the broken-down automobile. Arlene’s perception of her transportation
problem was not a static one. As she talked to a mechanic, a used-car dealer, a
new-car dealer, a banker, her parents, and others, she was constantly changing her
interpretation of reality. In similar fashion, all people continually create their own
view of the world. Some people are quite inflexible and seldom change their way
of seeing things. They cling to their view of reality even as the real world changes.
For example, people with anorexia nervosa continue to see themselves as fat while