Chapter 19 Kelly: Psychology of Personal Constructs 575Differences Among People
Kelly’s second corollary is equally obvious. “Persons differ from each other in
their construction of events” (Kelly, 1955, p. 55). Kelly called this emphasis on
individual differences the individuality corollary.
Because people have different reservoirs of experiences, they construe the
same event in different ways. Thus, no two people put an experience together in
exactly the same way. Both the substance and the form of their constructs are dif-
ferent. For example, a philosopher may subsume the construct truth under the
rubric of eternal values; a lawyer may view truth as a relative concept, useful for
a particular purpose; and a scientist may construe truth as an ever-elusive goal,
something to be sought, but never attained. For the philosopher, the lawyer, and
the scientist, truth has a different substance, a different meaning. Moreover, each
person arrived at his or her particular construction in a different manner and thus
gives it a different form. Even identical twins living in nearly identical environ-
ments do not construe events exactly the same. For example, part of Twin A’s
environment includes Twin B, an experience not shared by Twin B.
Although Kelly (1955) emphasized individual differences, he pointed out that
experiences can be shared and that people can find a common ground for constru-
ing experiences. This allows people to communicate both verbally and nonverbally.
However, due to individual differences, the communication is never perfect.
Relationships Among Constructs
Kelly’s third corollary, the organization corollary, emphasizes relationships
among constructs and states that people “characteristically evolve, for [their] con-
venience in anticipating events, a construction system embracing ordinal relation-
ships between constructs” (Kelly, 1955, p. 56).
The first two corollaries assume similarities among events and differences
among people. The third emphasizes that different people organize similar events
in a manner that minimizes incompatibilities and inconsistencies. We arrange our
constructions so that we may move from one to another in an orderly fashion,
which allows us to anticipate events in ways that transcend contradictions and
avoid needless conflicts.
The organization corollary also assumes an ordinal relationship of constructs
so that one construct may be subsumed under another. Figure 19.1 illustrates a
hierarchy of constructs as they might apply to Arlene, the engineering major. In
deciding a course of action after her car broke down, Arlene may have seen her
situation in terms of dichotomous superordinate constructs such as good versus bad.
At that point in her life, Arlene regarded independence (of friends or parents) as
good and dependence as bad. However, her personal construct system undoubtedly
included a variety of constructs subsumed under good and bad. For example, Arlene
probably construed intelligence and health as good and stupidity and illness as bad.
Furthermore, Arlene’s views of independence and dependence (like her constructs
of good and bad) would have had a multitude of subordinate constructs. In this
situation, Arlene construed staying in school as independence and living with her
parents as dependence. In order to remain in school and continue her job, Arlene
needed transportation. There were many possible means of transportation, but