Chapter 19 Kelly: Psychology of Personal Constructs 579Arlene’s personal construct of independence versus dependence was suffi-
ciently permeable to take in new elements. When, without parental consultation,
she made the decision to buy a used car, the construct of maturity versus childish-
ness penetrated independence versus dependence and added a new flavor to it.
Previously, the two constructs had been separated, and Arlene’s notion of indepen-
dence was limited to the idea of doing as she chose, whereas dependence was
associated with parental domination. Now she construed independence as meaning
mature responsibility and dependence as signifying a childish leaning on parents.
In such a manner, all people modulate or adjust their personal constructs.
Incompatible Constructs
Although Kelly assumed an overall stability or consistency of a person’s construc-
tion system, his fragmentation corollary allows for the incompatibility of specific
elements. “A person may successively employ a variety of constructive subsystems
which are inferentially incompatible with each other” (Kelly, 1955, p. 83).
At first it may seem as if personal constructs must be compatible, but if we
look to our own behavior and thinking, we can easily see some inconsistencies. In
Chapter 18, we pointed out that Walter Mischel (a student of Kelly) believed that
behavior is usually more inconsistent than trait theorists would have us believe.
Children are often patient in one situation yet impatient in another. Similarly, a
person may be brave while confronting a vicious dog but cowardly when confront-
ing a boss or teacher. Although our behaviors often seem inconsistent, Kelly
saw underlying stability in most of our actions. For example, a man might be protec-
tive of his wife, yet encourage her to be more independent. Protection and indepen-
dence may be incompatible with each other on one level, but on a larger level, both
are subsumed under the construct of love. Thus, the man’s actions to protect his
wife and to encourage her to be more independent are consistent with a larger,
superordinate construct.
Superordinate systems may also change, but those changes take place within
a still larger system. In the previous example of the protective husband, for instance,
the man’s love for his wife may gradually shift to hatred, but that change remains
within a larger construct of self-interest. The previous love for his wife and the
present hatred are both consistent with his view of self-interest. If incompatible
constructs could not coexist, people would be locked into a fixed construct, which
would make change nearly impossible.
Similarities Among People
Although Kelly’s second supporting corollary assumes that people are different
from each other, his commonality corollary assumes similarities among people.
His slightly revised commonality corollary reads: “To the extent that one person
employs a construction of experience which is similar to that employed by another,
[that person’s] processes are psychologically similar to those of the other person”
(Kelly, 1970, p. 20).
Two people need not experience the same event or even similar events for their
processes to be psychologically similar; they must merely construe their experiences
in a similar fashion. Because people actively construe events by asking questions,
forming hypotheses, drawing conclusions, and then asking more questions, different