fei75766_ch19_610-639.indd 618  02/06/20 01:53 PM
Part VI    Learning-Cognitive Theories618
Because people havedifferent reservoirs ofexperiences, theyconstrue thesame 
event indifferent ways. Thus, notwopeople putanexperience together inexactly 
thesame way.Both thesubstance andtheform oftheirconstructs aredifferent. For
example, aphilosopher maysubsume theconstruct truthunder therubric ofeternal 
values; alawyer mayviewtruth asarelative concept, useful foraparticular purpose; 
andascientist mayconstrue truth asanever-elusive goal, something tobesought, 
butnever attained. Forthephilosopher, thelawyer, andthescientist,  truth hasadif-
ferent substance, adifferent meaning. Moreover, eachperson arrived athisorher
particular construction inadifferent manner andthusgives itadifferent form. Even 
identical twins living innearly identical environments donotconstrue events exactly 
thesame. Forexample, partofTwin A’senvironment includes Twin B,anexperience 
notshared byTwin B.
Although Kelly (1955) emphasized individual differences, hepointed outthat
experiences canbeshared andthatpeople canfindacommon ground forconstruing 
experiences. Thisallows people tocommunicate bothverbally andnonverbally. How -
ever, duetoindividual differences, thecommunication isnever perfect.
Relationships Among Constructs
Kelly’s third corollary, theorganization corollary, emphasizes relationships among 
constructs andstates thatpeople “characteristically evolve, for [their] convenience in 
anticipating events, a construction system embracing ordinal relationships between con -
structs” (Kelly, 1955, p.56).
Thefirsttwocorollaries assume similarities among events anddifferences 
among people. Thethird emphasizes thatdifferent people organize similar events 
inamanner thatminimizes incompatibilities andinconsistencies. Wearrange our
constructions sothatwemaymove from onetoanother inanorderly fashion, which 
allows ustoanticipate events inways thattranscend contradictions andavoid need -
lessconflicts.
Theorganization corollary alsoassumes anordinal relationship ofconstructs 
sothatoneconstruct maybesubsumed under another. Figure 19.1illustrates ahierar -
chyofconstructs astheymight apply toArlene, theengineering major. Indeciding a
course ofaction afterhercarbroke down, Arlene mayhaveseenhersituation interms 
ofdichotomous superordinate constructs suchasgood versus bad.Atthatpoint in
herlife,Arlene regarded independence (offriends orparents) asgood anddependence 
asbad.However, herpersonal construct system undoubtedly included avariety of
constructs subsumed under good andbad.Forexample, Arlene probably construed 
intelligence andhealth asgood andstupidity andillness asbad.Furthermore, Arlene’s 
views ofindependence anddependence (likeherconstructs ofgood andbad)would 
havehadamultitude ofsubordinate constructs. Inthissituation, Arlene construed 
staying inschool asindependence andliving withherparents asdependence. Inorder 
toremain inschool andcontinue herjob,Arlene needed transportation. There were
many possible means oftransportation, butArlene considered onlyfour:riding apublic 
bus,walking, relying onfriends, ordriving herowncar.Subsumed under theconstruct 
ofcarwerethree subordinate constructs: repairing heroldcar,buying anewone,or
purchasing alate-model usedcar.Thisexample suggests thatconstructs havenotonly
acomplex ordinal relationship witheachother butadichotomous relationship aswell.Final PDF to printer