1) Are there any other reasons that the relationship between constructs
and behaviour (Kelly's analogy of behavior as the experiment, or question to
test the construing) has produced little research? Do you feel it is not
operationalisable/ quantifiable?
2) How and why would you integrate TRA into a PCT framework? I am
interested, as although I have seen epistemological differences, I see some
general similarities. The reason I ask is that I am currently working on a
study looking at adolescent condom use from a PCT perscpective. Most of the
literature is within the knowledge-attitude-behaviour paradigm and searches
for neat quantitative predictors. I wrestle with the idea of how to find
better quantitative predictors of this behaviour or even whether I should be
or can from the PCT perspective? I guess this also ties in with the
distinction you made between the idiographic clinical focus of PCT versus the
nomothetic focus of TRA and attitude/behaviour/health promotion type research.
3) Are TRA and PCT incompatible in their assumptions about the actor? TRA
seems to assume a rational decision maker who occasionally strays from reason
to take risks. PCT uses the CPC cycle and the choice corollary to describe
decision making but seems a long way from claiming "reasoned or rational"
action.
Your response or that of anyone else would be wonderful to help me quench this
growing curiosity.
Thanks and Regards
Lindsay Oades
Wollongong
_______________________________________________________________________________
To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
From: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk on Wed, Jun 26, 1996 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Constructs and attitudes
RFC Header:Received: by uow.edu.au with SMTP;26 Jun 1996 19:14:49 +1000
Received: from norn.mailbase.ac.uk (daemon@norn.mailbase.ac.uk
[128.240.226.1]) by wyrm.its.uow.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA18692;
Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:08:30 +1000 (EST)
Received: by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <JAA24141@norn.mailbase.ac.uk>
(8.6.12/ for mailbase.ac.uk); Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:23:27 +0100
Received: from hermes.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id
<JAA24128@norn.mailbase.ac.uk>
(8.6.12/ for mailbase.ac.uk) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:23:21 +0100
From: upsyf077@hrz.uni-bielefeld.de
Received: from cher.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de (nena.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de) by
hermes.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de with ESMTP
(1.37.109.17/16.2) id AA002237717; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:28:37 +0200
Received: by cher.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA012247223; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:20:23 +0200
Message-Id: <199606260820.AA012247223@cher.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: Re: Constructs and attitudes
To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:20:23 +0200 (METDST)
In-Reply-To: <n1376313214.97168@uow.edu.au> from Lindsay Oades at "Jun 26, 96
05:21:57 pm"
X-Hpvue$Revision: 1.8 $
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Vue-Mime-Level: 4
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-List: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave pcp'
to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk
Reply-To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
Sender: pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk
Precedence: list
Dear Lindsay,
Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) regard attitudes as a function of salient beliefs
about an attitude object and the evaluation of these beliefs. This is
a classic expectancy value model. I don't think that evaluation here
is neccessarily affective it may have more or less cognitive
components. In terms of PCT there are two constructions involved here:
the construction of an attitude object (element in repgrid) and the
construction of constructs (in terms of good-bad, like-dislike etc.
constructs).
Concerning the relation between constructs and behavior, you ask why
predictions of behavior are made from PCT. They are made, because
behavior may be regarded as an important outcome of psychological
processes, which in PCT are channelized by personal constructs (e.g.,
in many cases of psychological therapy or treatment, the aspect of
behavioral change may be important). Unfortunately, little research
has been devoted to the question of how behavior is related to
personal constructs. This may be a result of the clinical focus of
PCT, since in therapy it may be more effective to rely on the
psychologists 'art' to discover this relationship, instead of relying
on general rules, which may not apply to the individual case. The
situation in attitude behavior research is different. In this field
you aim at changing the behaviors of many people (taking into account
that you won't 'reach' each individuum) by changing there attitudes.
In conclusion, I think, that PCT provides a frame, in which theories,
like the theory of reasoned action, can be integrated. But for
specific purposes and specific phenomena, we need elaborations of the
theory, which can not simply be deduced from the basic PCT (e.g., the
corollaries).
Kind regards
Rainer
_______________________________________________________________________________
Rainer Riemann Phone: <0>521 106 4529
Universitaet Bielefeld Fax: <0>521 106 5844
Fakultaet fuer Psychologie e-mail:
upsyf077@hrz.uni-bielefeld.de
und Sportwissenschaft
Postfach 100131
D-33501 Bielefeld
_______________________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%