Post by sjangwal on Dec 2, 2017 16:19:48 GMT
Discuss whether the repertory grid technique exercise in class seemed to elicit constructs that make sense to you as ways that you typically construe your world. Did it reveal any interesting difference between the constructs you elicited and those of the others in your group? Do you think these differences were because of the people being rated or were they because of the people doing the rating? How would Butt hope you answer this last question? Why?
When we were first asked to consider whether we elicited constructs in ways that we typically construe our world, my initial thought was that the constructs used were due to the individuals' prominent personality traits that stood out to me. But after thinking about the exercise, comparing constructs, and re-evaluating the constructs being compared im more inclined to say that the elicited constructs seem more likely to be the way I typically construe my world. These constructs, although this may not always be the case, may be the qualities or personality traits that I may deem "important" or something that I look to first when evaluating an individual. Im sure in some ways the constructs elicited could have been different amongst group members because of the different individuals being evaluated, this could be a result of trying to fulfill the rules of the repertory grid technique (such as, trying to find a trait in which two individuals who are similar and a third who is different). After the initial 2 or 3 trials, I found myself searching for any traits 2 individuals could be compared and then finding any 3rd person to oppose that trait. However, in the grand scheme of the exercise, I believe the differences seen amongst others in my group is more likely influenced due to the person doing the rating. Butt described the grid technique as a method for helping people reflect on the way things appear to them, therefore he would explain differences experiences amongst different people as a result of the individual doing the rating because he emphasized the point that our constructs have to do with how we perceive people and our world. Butt explains this technique is used to try and understand how people construe others and themselves, results would be different from one another.
When we were first asked to consider whether we elicited constructs in ways that we typically construe our world, my initial thought was that the constructs used were due to the individuals' prominent personality traits that stood out to me. But after thinking about the exercise, comparing constructs, and re-evaluating the constructs being compared im more inclined to say that the elicited constructs seem more likely to be the way I typically construe my world. These constructs, although this may not always be the case, may be the qualities or personality traits that I may deem "important" or something that I look to first when evaluating an individual. Im sure in some ways the constructs elicited could have been different amongst group members because of the different individuals being evaluated, this could be a result of trying to fulfill the rules of the repertory grid technique (such as, trying to find a trait in which two individuals who are similar and a third who is different). After the initial 2 or 3 trials, I found myself searching for any traits 2 individuals could be compared and then finding any 3rd person to oppose that trait. However, in the grand scheme of the exercise, I believe the differences seen amongst others in my group is more likely influenced due to the person doing the rating. Butt described the grid technique as a method for helping people reflect on the way things appear to them, therefore he would explain differences experiences amongst different people as a result of the individual doing the rating because he emphasized the point that our constructs have to do with how we perceive people and our world. Butt explains this technique is used to try and understand how people construe others and themselves, results would be different from one another.