Lecture
The problem of the method of research, being one of the central and most complex problems of psychology in general, in the psychology of personality acquires special significance and urgency. Many psychologists abroad are concerned about the prevalence of the object approach in this area, the tendency towards a normative description of human individuality, the lack of desire to reconstruct the original integrity of a person’s personality in experimental psychological research. The titles of the articles eloquently testify to this. For example, in the article “Where is the Personality in Personality Studies?” [16] the author, after analyzing the content of articles on personality psychology in several leading American journals, concluded that in the vast majority of experimental studies the psychologist encounters the subject, as a rule a psychologist, once, at most - twice; at the same time, the task of reconstruction of the personality as a special integrity is not set, and the researcher actually does not deal with. personality, and with individual skills, abilities and characteristics. In an article entitled “N = 1”, rather succinctly, the author reproaches psychologists for having an artificially cultivated fashion for large samples, for fear of not being solid, doing research on one person (N = 1) [20].
All this reflects the need for an effective and flexible experimental method that would allow to investigate a person’s personality as a unique unique integrity, build predictions and test hypotheses immediately during the experiment, without involving both group statistical norms and cumbersome interpretation systems.
In this article, readers are invited to learn more about the new experimental approach to the study of personality, which allows using all the tools of modern psychometrics and the apparatus of multidimensional statistical methods not to obtain group empirical generalizations and design standard scales, but as a subtle tool for analyzing the individual human personality structure described , if I may say so, in “its own language”, in the system of its own constructs.
This approach, called repertoire matrix testing, or, in modern terminology, the technique of repertory grids (TPP), being considered as a set of methodological techniques, is an operational implementation of an individually oriented approach to subjective scaling. The technique of repertory grids does not aim at comparing the assessments and reactions of a person with the normalized group data (which, of course, is not excluded), but seeks to reconstruct the individually defined system of semantic divisions, oppositions and generalizations underlying the subjective assessments, relationships and predictions. The emergence of the technique of repertory grids is associated with the name of J. Kelly, with the theory of individual constructs created by him [26] (hereinafter the term “personal constructs” is translated as “individual constructs”, and the term “personality constructs” as “personality constructs” (there are Species constructs relating to the personal sphere and the sphere of interpersonal relations. The authors thank A. G. Shmelev and M. P. Miroshnikov for their participation in the discussion and clarification of terminology. Recall some of its provisions and definitions.
The concept of a construct (summarizing the numerous metaphorical and allegorical definitions of J. Kelly) can be defined as follows: it is a special subjective means, designed by the person himself, verified (validated) through his own experience, with which a person selects, evaluates and predicts events, organizes his behavior, "Understands" other people, reconstructs the system of relationships and builds an "image of me". It is both a mode of behavior, a parameter of relations and assessments, and a cognitive semantic dismemberment and opposition.
The construct is always bipolar, has two poles (like "north - south"). This is its difference from the concept: the concept sets the nominal scale (class, concept), the construct - at least the scale of the order, and in fact the scale of higher levels (semantic gradient).
Constructs are organized into a system that has a complex hierarchical organization and many subsystems. Due to the commonality and sociality of human experience, many constructs are similar in different people. However, since the construct is not absorbed from the outside, but is built by the person himself, he is individually determined, and there are constructs that exist in one copy only for this particular person.
In search of an experimental method adequate to his own concept, J. Kelly developed the repertory test of personal constructs (RTLK) - the first method in a series of repertory grids. The basis of this test is the fundamental postulate of his theory: "Personality processes are psychologically channeled by the same ways that a person predicts and evaluates events." This allowed us to explore constructs through their manifestation at the semantic level, extending the results to all personal processes. The repertoire test of personality constructs is well known, described, including in Russian [1] [2], and therefore we will not dwell on its description, but consider a set of problems and ways to solve them, resulting from the further development of repertory techniques lattices.
The technique of repertory grids is not a battery of tests, but an experimental method, including special techniques for planning and conducting experiments, processing and interpreting the results. An important difference between the technique of repertory grids and many other scaling procedures is that the repertory grids are not aimed at obtaining information about the objects of scaling, which, of course, is possible, but at obtaining information about the person filling the grid.
In general, the repertoire grid (PP) is a matrix, organized in a certain way, which is filled either by the subject himself or by the experimenter in a structured interview process. Rows of the matrix are traditionally called constructs, columns - elements. In this case, talking about the so-called surface, or primary constructs. Real, or deep, constructs still need to be identified. Real constructs are often not recognized by the man himself in his direct form, but appear “on the surface” under a variety of names, verbal “labels”.
The first problem that a researcher must solve when planning an experiment is what to use as primary constructs. In the technique of repertory grids, various procedures for eliciting the primary constructs of the subject himself are applied. To induce constructs, you can use any projective technique and any material, for example, free compositions, TAT, just a conversation with the subject. However, more structured specially developed ways of calling up constructs seem to be more effective, since they facilitate the task for the subject and set the specific context necessary for this study [4], [6]. The most famous of them are: the triad method [26] (the subject is asked to select and name the two most similar among themselves and determine how they differ from the third); the full context method [26] (the subject works directly with the whole set of elements, grouping and contrasting them in various ways) and their variants, such as methods of self-identification and self-personalization [22], [26]. Less well-known, but no less interesting, are the procedures of hierarchization of Hinkle and the construction of Landfield pyramids (see [22]). They represent an attempt to call constructs of different levels of generalization.
Constructs can be both verbal and non-verbal. For example, in the Bailey-Gromen study (see [22]), when working with deaf-and-dumb children, gestures, facial expressions and pantomimic patterns were used as primary constructs. As constructs can be used and drawings and colors - everything that is of interest to the experimenter.
Do I have to call constructs or can I use ready-made ones? There is no single answer to this question. Kelly believed that the constructs that he calls by his own methods are a representative sample of a multitude of verbal manifestations of the deep constructs and turn out to be more personally relevant [26].
The representativeness, reproducibility and validity of the resulting constructs was verified and confirmed by a number of works. So, it was shown that the subjects (patients of psychiatric hospitals and college students) reproduce 70% of the induced constructs when the procedure is repeated a week later [4]. It also shows that the number of constructs that can be called from one person is not infinite - after 30 triads of elements taken from one area, completely new constructs rarely appear. In other papers [21], [27], the reproducibility of constructs under various conditions was shown.
Osvalt conducted a very important study [35]. Using the free wording procedure, he called up 3,800 words with which the subjects described their acquaintances. It turned out that only 26% of words were used by more than one person. Based on these data, Osvalt concludes that each person has his own specific enough constructs to describe specific people.
A review of studies on the direct comparison of called and given constructs showed that the estimates and self-assessments on the called constructs are more extreme and differentiated than on the given [3], [4]. Caused constructs are more preferable [4], [31], more relevant for self-description [W], [4], according to the called constructs, the subjects better differentiate themselves from others [4]. All of these data, with a few exceptions [43], speak in favor of the use of called, rather than given, constructs. However, the given constructs are in some respects more convenient because they make it possible to construct a data cube (see about it [2]), and they are used no less often, which naturally causes displeasure among successive supporters of the technique of repertory grids [12]. Obviously, this problem is still far from being resolved. Apparently. When working with TRR, it is necessary to be guided by specific goals and objectives. In some cases, you can apply and given constructs. However, in the study of specific areas, such as, for example, a person’s reconstruction of the causes of family, educational or industrial conflicts, it is better to use the resulting constructs, since it is unlikely that many individual semantic divisions can be blocked with the help of given constructs.
The problem of the choice of elements is in many ways similar to the problem of caused and given constructs discussed above. The level of significance of the constructs and the degree of their relevance for this particular person depends on the choice of elements. The relationship between constructs and elements is quite complex. On the one hand, the construct is not identical to the elements. For example, the reproducibility of constructs and the relations between them was shown on non-recurring sets of photographs that were used as elements [9], [10]. The construct is a “special reference axis”, but elements that are in one context at the same pole may be on the opposite in the other. On the other hand, any construct has its own range of applicability, or range of convenience (level of convenience) [26]. The possibilities of its application to the assessment of people, objects and events, as a rule, are not limitless. If we use more and more diverse repertoires of the elements, we will eventually get constructs that are similar or homologous to Osgud factors Assessment, Strength, Activity, i.e. constructs that have an unlimited range of applicability and are essentially a semantic representation of generalized affective reactions.
Obviously, the general recommendations are as follows. Elements must be relevant to a single subsystem of constructs. For example, if a researcher is interested in how the subject perceives various professions, then in this case it is meaningless to take the role list of J. Kelly as elements: it is necessary to use the repertoire of professions. If the researcher is interested in several areas at once, then, apparently, it is necessary to build a grid for each area separately, and then explore the relationship between subsystems of the constructs, as was done, for example, in studies [5] and [18].
The study of the interaction of the induced constructs and elements showed that the constructs called up according to the role list by J. Kelly (Bonarius called them “personal others”) are not always suitable for describing “external others”, and vice versa [4]. As we see, even in such a homogeneous area the role of the sample, or subregion, is very important. On the other hand, the limiting narrowing of the context leads to the fact that the constructs called are less significant [7].
An important role is played by the overall affective assessment of the subjects. It was shown that the subjects better distinguish negative characters than positive ones (vigilance hypothesis) [33]. Apparently, the list of elements should be balanced as far as possible by connotative parameters.
Thus, the correct choice of elements depends largely on the experience and insight of the experimenter. It is necessary to choose a homogeneous region, correctly estimate its boundaries and select elements in such a way that they constitute a representative sample. Otherwise, the results of this repertoire grid will be tied only to a specific set of elements and will have little value.
One should not think that elements reconstructed from memory are always used in repertory grids. They can be photographs [7], [8], [9], [24], and paintings [34], and dramatic works [32]. Even members of the psychotherapeutic group, which included the subject himself [23], [44], acted as elements.
One of the most popular TPP procedures is the rank grid. After selecting the elements and invoking the test constructs, they are asked to rank the elements from one pole of the construct to the other. In the matrix obtained as a result of such a procedure, at the intersection of rows and columns are ranks that correspond to each element for each construct. For the analysis of lattices of this type, Slater [39], [40] proposed a number of machining programs, in particular, methods of nonparametric factor analysis. However, rank grids can be processed manually. Bannister [22] proposed a simple manual processing procedure that allows to evaluate the significance of a construct, reconstruct a system of interconnections between constructs and construct the space of the first two main components. He also proposed a procedure for estimating the distances between constructs and elements and evaluating the similarity of elements. Using these procedures, one can evaluate, for example, the degree of the subject's identification with each character included in the repertoire of a given grid, the distance between the “I” and the “ideal I”, and much more.
Evaluation grid. When a lattice of this type is filled in, the subject evaluates each element in a special manner on a graded scale. The simplest variant of the estimated lattice is a lattice filled according to the principle of “ticks and spaces” [4], [22], [26]. The subject is asked to put a tick in the column corresponding to a specific element, if he belongs to one pole of the construct, and leave a space if he belongs to another. Lattices of this type make it possible to reveal non-informative constructs and constructs with asymmetric distribution of elements. However, the lattices themselves do not allow us to decide what to do with asymmetric constructs. Kelly proposed to exclude them from the analysis [26]. Bavilas with co-authors conducted a study of the effect of the asymmetry of the construct on various mathematical measures; a U-shaped relationship was discovered: in order not to influence the result, the number of units (“ticks”) in the repertory grid should be about 50% (see [4]). Bannister [22] proposed a procedure for sorting into equal groups by the poles of the construct, which is optimal from the point of view of the results obtained by Bavilas.
As further research [4], [5], [13] showed, the asymmetry of the construct is the rule, not the exception. Numerous studies that followed this discovery proved that, on average, the distribution of elements along the poles of a construct fluctuates around the ratio 62/38 at the positive and negative poles, respectively, which exactly coincides with the so-called golden section. This relationship was reproduced in different cultural populations [4], [13], on different materials [4], [5], for given and called constructs [7].It was also found that children under the age of 10, on average, significantly more often use the positive pole to describe people than adults [37]. However, the ratio of 62/38 is established on average by the age of 15. To explain these phenomena, a whole series of hypotheses was proposed (see [4]).
The implicative lattice was proposed by Hinkle (see [22]). It does not contain elements in the traditional sense, but the “I myself” of the subject is used as an implicit element. After invoking constructs, the subject is offered the following procedure:
“Imagine that you have changed on this construct. For which of the remaining constructs, will you also change? ”. The procedure is carried out with each construct. As a result, it is possible to reconstruct the hierarchy of constructs. Constructs that occupy the highest places in the hierarchy give the maximum number of implications (i.e., changes on other constructs), while they are implied by few constructs. This procedure allows us to estimate the degree of conflictness of the subsystem of constructs [22].
Решетка сопротивления изменениям также была предложена Хинклом (см. [22]). Она похожа на импликативную, но отличается по процедуре проведения. Испытуемому предлагают пару конструктов и, после того как он выбрал предпочитаемый полюс по каждому из них. его спрашивают, по какому из этих конструктов он предпочел бы измениться. Исследования, проведенные Хинклом, показывают, что конструкты, имеющие наибольшее число импликаций, наиболее сильно сопротивляются изменениям. [four]. [22].
Решетка зависимости была разработана Дж. Келли, однако она менее известна, чем другие репертуарные решетки. Элементы берутся из ролевого списка, а в качестве конструктов используются различные стрессовые ситуации. Испытуемому предлагается указать, к кому он обратился бы за помощью в каждой из перечисленных ситуаций. Хинкл предложил противоположный вариант: испытуемый должен ответить, кто, как ему кажется, обратился бы за помощью к нему (см. [22]). По-видимому, в дальнейшем решетки такого типа будут использоваться чаще, особенно там. где необходимо получить информацию о степени социальной зрелости и самостоятельности человека.
Существуют и другие, специальные, типы решеток, которые разработаны для специфического контингента испытуемых: детей дошкольного и младшего школьного возраста, умственно отсталых, глухонемых, заик и т. п. [4], [22]. На сегодняшний день уже предложено много различных математических алгоритмов статистического анализа репертуарных решеток [4], [22], [38], [39], [40]. Наиболее известны и широко применяются параметрический и непараметрический факторные анализы, дающие возможность построения совмещенных отображений конструктов и элементов, различные типы кластерного анализа, непараметрическое многомерное шкалирование и некоторые другие методы. Подробное описание различных подходов к анализу РР и описание программ машинной обработки можно найти в книгах Слейтера [39], [40]. Этим же автором предложен оригинальный способ представления структуры интраиндивидуального пространства конструктов, получивший название «сферическая координатная модель», или «модель глобуса» [38]: на сферу наносятся точки прохождения главных осей и точки прохождения векторов конструктов и элементов, что дает наглядное представление о трехмерной структуре субъективного пространства (описание некоторых алгоритмов на русском языке см., например, [].)
Важно подчеркнуть, что техника репертуарных решеток не укладывается в традиционные психометрические каноны. И, хотя постоянно предпринимались и предпринимаются попытки ассимилировать новую технику с позиций старых подходов в психометрии, такой ассимиляции не произошло [4], [15]. Техника репертуарных решеток, по сути, является не еще одним новым методическим приемом, а особым методическим подходом к субъективному шкалированию, во многом более общим, чем существовавшие до него.
В общем виде результаты, получаемые при анализе репертуарных решеток, можно разделить на две группы:
а) формально-структурные характеристики системы индивидуальных конструктов (например, степень дифференцированности и интегрированности системы, выраженность первой главной компоненты, числа изолированных конструктов и т. д.); б) содержательно-смысловые характеристики (например, в данной репертуарной решетке первая главная компонента может быть интерпретирована как «социальная дистанция», расстояние между элементами «я» и «моя мать» ближе, чем между «я» и «мой отец» и т. п.).
Был предпринят целый ряд попыток поиска устойчивых индивидуальных параметров, которые можно было бы занести в списки, аналогичные спискам черт, и придать им статус пожизненных индексов. Однако исследователи были удивлены тем фактом, что. решетки меняются [15] и, естественно, меняются и сами меры [4], [22]. Представления Дж. Келли о том, что «человек — это форма движения» [26; 48], полностью оправдались. Надежность, по Келли, — это нечувствительность теста к изменениям [26]. Традиционные представления о надежности тестов в русле техники репертуарных решеток были пересмотрены: воспроизводимость и консистентность результатов стали рассматриваться как характеристики не инструмента, а человека, заполняющего решетку [4], [12]. [22].
Вместе с тем изменился и подход к исследованию формально-структурных характеристик систем индивидуальных конструктов. Основной линией становится не поиск «надежных» индексов, а исследование онто- и актуалгенеза когнитивных структур. Надо подчеркнуть, что теория Дж. Келли буквально пронизана духом идеи развития [26]. Последовательное проведение принципов генетического подхода отличает и наиболее верных сторонников Келли.
Развитие систем индивидуальных конструктов, как оно понимается сегодня, идет по трем направлениям: а) дифференциация внутри гомогенных областей; б) интеграция (объединение подсистем и иерархизация уровней объединения); в) возрастание проницаемости суперординатных структур для новых элементов [7]. т. е. способности системы ассимилировать новый опыт без глобальных изменений собственной структуры.
С этих позиций необходимо различать истинную когнитивную дифференцированность (КД) от беспорядочности конструирования, или «рыхлости» (loose) систем конструктов, когнитивную интегрированность (КИ) от плотности или «монолитности» системы конструктов. Наиболее явно эти различия становятся видны при исследовании больных с нарушениями мышления.
Баннистер [8], [9], [10] использовал меру, аналогичную мере когнитивной сложности Биери [14] для диагностики больных шизофренией с нарушениями мышления. Мера Баннистера, названная им интенсивностью, подсчитывается простым суммированием квадратов коэффициентов корреляции между всеми парами конструктов: чем выше балл интенсивности, тем сильнее связи между конструктами, тем более монолитной является вся система. Однако эта мера, как и мера Биери, сама по себе не дифференцирует истинную когнитивную дифференцируемость от беспорядочности («рыхлости») системы конструктов, поскольку по обеим мерам больные шизофренией оказываются наиболее когнитивно сложными и дифференцированными. Вторая мера, предложенная Баннистером, — консистентность конструктов (воспроизводимость отношений между конструктами через короткие промежутки времени), будучи использована параллельно с первой, дает возможность отличить «рыхлость» системы от подлинной когнитивной дифференцированности. Больные шизофренией с нарушениями мышления демонстрируют полную смену паттерна взаимосвязей между конструктами. Здоровые же когнитивно дифференцированные испытуемые воспроизводят паттерн взаимосвязей с интервалом в несколько дней даже при смене элементов [8], [10].
Для объяснения полученных результатов Баннистер [9], [10] выдвинул следующую гипотезу: больные шизофренией с нарушениями мышления сталкиваются с постоянной инвалидизацией своего способа конструирования (т. е. с неподтверждением ожиданий, которые следуют из их предсказаний), в результате чего система конструктов разрушается и становится беспорядочной. Для проверки этой гипотезы была проведена серия исследований по экспериментальной валидизации — инвалидизации конструктов. Оказалось, что в случае, когда конструкты человека подвергаются постоянной инвалидизации, система становится более «рыхлой» (уменьшаются корреляции между конструктами) [9].
Однако тест Баннистера был подвергнут критике, так как исследования [40], [41] показали, что у больных шизофренией с нарушениями мышления неконсистентность наблюдается уже в ходе одного эксперимента и, возможно, результаты Баннистера можно объяснить неспособностью таких больных выполнить процедуру шкалирования.
Франселла и Баннистер [22] и Слейтер [38] считают, что изменения могут быть как консистентными, так и неконсистентными. Слейтер [38], критикуя меру консистентности Баннистера, предложил свою меру, основанную на оценке воспроизводимости всех расстояний между всеми парами конструктов. Рейм считает [36], что гипотеза Баннистера спорна, так как он не различает инвалидизации конструктов, объектов, собственно конструирования.
Однако эксперименты по валидизации — инвалидизации, ставшие уже классическими, безусловно, проливают свет на некоторые механизмы генеза системы конструктов. По-видимому. опираясь на результаты этих исследований, можно сделать вывод о том, что различие между когнитивной дифференцированностью и беспорядочностью систем конструктов — различие генетическое. Если когнитивная дифференцированность связана с прогрессивным дифференцированием опыта, с усложнением и увеличением точности и многомерности прогнозирования, то беспорядочность в первую очередь связана с неудачным конструированием. Это разрушение системы конструктов.
Понятие когнитивной интегрированности является более сложным и операционально менее разработано. По всей вероятности, интеграция включает в себя два процесса: прогрессивную иерархизацию конструктов или подсистем конструктов и образование связей между отдельными подсистемами (артикуляцию) [4]. Иерархическая организация является наиболее сложно операционально определяемой характеристикой. Основные исследования были проведены Хинклом с использованием импликативных решеток и решеток сопротивления изменениям (см. [4], [17]). Он обнаружил, что конструкты, наиболее сильно сопротивляющиеся изменениям, дают максимальное число импликаций. Однако формат и метрика импликативных матриц пока трудно поддаются анализу [22]. Смит и Лич [41] разработали методы иерархического анализа, основанные на кластерном анализе решеток. Ряд исследований показал, что конструкты, дающие максимальный вклад в значимые главные компоненты, оказываются и более суперординатными (см. [4]). Франселла, используя решетки Хинкла, сочла возможным предложить иерархическую меру, названную ею мерой насыщенности: процентное отношение реального количества импликаций у данного испытуемого к возможному количеству [22]. Эта мера значимо коррелировала с улучшением состояния заикающихся в ходе терапии. Существуют и другие меры, такие, как экстремальность оценок [31] и связанная с нею мера порядка (см. [22]). В работе Таннела было показано, что конструкты, являющиеся центральными для описания самого себя, являются таковыми и при описании окружающих [42]. В другом исследовании было обнаружено, что центральные личностные конструкты в большей степени обусловливают действия испытуемых по отношению к окружающим [18].
However, in studies of hierarchical organization, it seems that the ideas about the personal significance of the construct and its explanatory capabilities are still not sufficiently understood. Probably, two types of hierarchization principles can be distinguished: hierarchy according to personal significance and hierarchization according to the degree of generality of the construct (globalization).
Another aspect of cognitive integration - the degree of articulation of the system (organization, the presence of transitions between subsystems) is also not well understood. Macluff-Norris and her co-authors [29], [30] described for the first time a measure of the articulation of a system of constructs. The procedure for calculating articulation is quite complex, so we will describe only a general principle: this measure is based on cluster analysis, on the evaluation of the structure of the dendrogram (classification tree) and the correlations between individual constructs. The researcher chooses the level of significance and cuts the dendrogram at this level. Constructs that are significantly correlated with each other are primary clusters. Constructs that significantly correlate with at least one primary cluster construct are branched constructs. Constructs that are significantly correlated with several constructs from different clusters are called connecting, or articulating. The remaining constructs are isolated. These researchers have shown that neurotics suffering from obsessional neurosis have constructs of two extreme types: a) all constructs are linked into one monolith; b) the constructs are combined into several separate fragmented clusters. The system of constructs of healthy subjects consists of several distinct clusters interconnected by connecting (articulating) constructs. Such a system is named by the authors articulated.
The permeability of construct systems has been studied relatively recently. Crocket and Meisel [19], exploring the perception of other people with a minimum of information about them, showed that with a strong disability of the test responses, the correlation between the change of perception and the degree of integration of the system was positive, and with a weak disability - negative. Thus, an integrated system can only be destroyed by strong impact.
Testing Bannister's hypothesis about the effect of disability on the breakdown of relationships between constructs showed that this effect is observed only in those who had a monolithic system of constructs before the experiment [28].
There are many others. more specific measures, such as the measure of conflict [22], the degree of asymmetry of design [4], etc.
Every year the popularity of the technique of repertory grids is increasing. It is firmly established as a special experimental method of research and diagnosis in areas such as psychotherapy and pedagogy, political psychology and the psychology of art. It is also used in sociological research. For example, it was used to study the sphere of career interests in vocational training [17].
The technique of repertory grids is undoubtedly a significant step forward in experimental psychology of personality. However, in the theoretical atmosphere that develops around the technique of repertory grids, which already now reveals all the features of the paradigm formed with its specific style of thinking, objective vision, clearly defined by opposition and opposition, the tendencies of excessive distribution of the theory of individual constructs (TEC) dominate. J. Kelly on the whole area of psychological reality.
Some provisions that are in line with this approach, such as the principle of development, the principle of activity, the principle of integrity and consistency, the leading role of forecasting in human behavior, the idea of the unity of various psychological processes, of course, are correct and progressive - they are also close to the Soviet psychological traditions. However, it should be remembered that, in general, this direction is characterized by the primacy of the descriptive over the explanatory method. In many ways, precisely because of this, an extraordinary ease arises of the application of the concepts of the theory of individual constructs to various “personal” processes. The consequence of the same is the similarity, even the practical coincidence of the operational language used in the TPP, with the language of the TEC, which allows us to interpret the results obtained using the technique of repertory grids directly in terms of this theory.
Ideographic focus of the whole approach. especially in the light of the experimental success of the technique of repertory grids, plays a certain positive role in the development of Western psychology, in a long dispute about what should be the psychology of personality, being an argument in support of ideas about the possibility of the scientific. individually oriented, subjective method of research of the personality, based on specific tools. However, the question of the unconditional connection of TRR and the TEC remains open: in fact, because they are historically linked, it does not yet follow the logical necessity of this connection. The concept of the construct itself, being heuristic and useful both practically (as it allows the psychologist to “work” with a person on the same level and language in which the main events of his subjective life unfold and are described), and theoretically (because it emphasizes the features of a real cognitive organization “Ordinary” human consciousness, the bipolarity of human judgments, evaluations and relationships), is largely given metaphorically, descriptively and requires deep, meaningful development.
In our opinion, the technique of repertory grids acquires its psychological certainty in the system of theoretical and methodological schemes of modern experimental psychosemantics. We tend to consider repertoire grids as a more general (compared to traditional) method of subjective scaling - a method with a maximum number of degrees of freedom. At the same time, by limiting the degrees of freedom, many of the known methods of subjective scaling can be obtained as particular cases. For example, the semantic differential. C. Osgood is a case of a matrix with given bipolar scales - adjectives and given elements - concepts. The personal questionnaire is a column vector of the repertoire grid, where the subject's “I” acts as an element, and the remaining columns of the matrix simply remain unfilled.
The technique of repertory grids has not yet shown all its possibilities. The rich material and methodical experience accumulated in line with the technique of repertory grids, of course, opens up new perspectives for modern experimental psychology and psychodiagnostics.
Literature
Comments
To leave a comment
Mathematical Methods in Psychology
Terms: Mathematical Methods in Psychology