The Repertory Grid. Part 2 of 2 on Personal Construct Psychology

Summary

The lecture introduces the repertory grid, a flexible method rooted in Personal Construct Psychology (PCP). It helps researchers explore how people make sense of a topic using their own categories and distinctions. The chocolate-bar exercise demonstrates the method, but it can be applied to many subjects and does not require researchers to adopt PCP as a whole.

Key concepts

• Constructs are the dimensions people use to understand or compare things. In Kelly’s formulation, a construct is elicited by asking how two items are alike and different from a third—for example, “has nuts” versus “has no nuts.”
• Individuality concerns the ways a person’s constructs are unique to them.
• Commonality concerns constructs that overlap across people in a group.
• Constructs may form related patterns or constellations: using one distinction may be connected to, or imply, another.
• In a grid, the elements are the things being compared, while the constructs are the dimensions used to compare them. The elements mainly serve as prompts for eliciting constructs.

Repertory-grid method demonstrated

1. Choose a domain and elements. For the classroom exercise, participants named familiar chocolate bars. The lecturer selected Mars, Snickers, Cadbury Dairy Milk, Bounty Milk, and an imaginary “ideal” bar.

2. Elicit constructs using triads. Participants worked in pairs. One person selected three element cards and asked, “How are any two alike and different from the third?” The comparison helped the other person articulate a construct.

3. Identify both poles of each construct. After a participant named one side—for example, “has nuts”—the interviewer asked for its contrast (“has no nuts”) and then asked which side the participant preferred. The two contrasting ends were recorded as a bipolar construct.

4. Repeat and record. The interviewer reshuffled the cards and used more groups of three to elicit additional constructs. Partners then switched roles and completed a separate grid.

5. Identify shared constructs when studying a group. To demonstrate a group or market-research application, the class compared the constructs they had generated. The lecturer discussed possible common dimensions, such as crunchy versus smooth, with or without caramel, or milk versus dark chocolate. Researchers can use content analysis to combine similar constructs and develop a shorter list that makes sense to the group.

6. Build and score the grid.

   • Put the selected elements across the columns.
   • Put the bipolar constructs down the rows.
   • For each element and construct, mark which pole best describes that element from the participant’s perspective.
   • The exercise used simple marks to distinguish the two poles. The lecturer noted that preferred and non-preferred poles could be arranged consistently if the goal were to analyze likes and dislikes.

7. Interpret patterns.

   • Compare columns to see which elements have similar or contrasting profiles across constructs.
   • Compare rows to see which constructs are applied in similar ways and may form a meaningful constellation.
   • Use the grid as a basis for follow-up questions, asking the participant what the patterns mean to them.

What the exercise showed

In the lecturer’s example grid, Snickers and the imagined ideal bar had similar profiles, suggesting that Snickers matched many of her preferences. Some constructs—such as chewy versus non-chewy and satisfying versus leaving one hungry—were rated in similar ways, suggesting a connection in her meaning system. Other related patterns concerned substantial, harder chocolate with pieces versus soft, smooth chocolate.

The lecturer emphasized that these patterns can help researchers understand what matters to an individual or, after identifying shared dimensions, what matters to a group. The method can also support research with children or others who may find it difficult to express their views in a conventional interview: comparing concrete examples may make it easier to explain their experiences.

A construct does not have to apply meaningfully to every element. If an element falls outside the useful range of a construct, it can be left unrated. The exercise is primarily a way to explore meaning; statistical analysis is not essential.

Speakers and sources featured

• Vivien Burr — the lecturer, identified by the video metadata; she explains the repertory-grid method and leads the exercise.
• Class participants/students — contribute chocolate-bar examples, constructs, and responses during the exercise.
• Graham — addressed by the lecturer during the activity, apparently to help distribute cards; he has no substantial spoken contribution in the subtitles.