Presentation to the third LIS DREaM workshop, held at Edinburgh Napier university on Wednesday 25th April 2012. More information about the event can be found at http://lisresearch.org/dream-project/dream-event-4-workshop-wednesday-25-april-2012/

1. Personal Construct Theory,
My Experience of Fruit & What people Chose
to Care About
Phil Turner

2. PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY

3. • George Kelly – clinical psychologist
• Created a theory of personality is predicated on
one axiom: Man is a Scientist (Kelly, 1955)
• That is, each of us tries to make sense of the
world as we experience it, and we do this by
constantly forming and testing hypotheses about
the world.
• By the time we are adults, we will have
developed a very complex model of the world
and our place in it: this model is, according to
Kelly, our personality.
3

4. • The term construct is particularly well-
chosen, because it reflects the concept’s dual
role.
• On the one hand, your constructs represent
the view you have constructed about the
world as you experienced it.
• On the other hand, your constructs indicate
how you are likely to construe the world as
you continue to experience it.
4

5. • Our construct system is our history and our
predisposition to perceive.
• Kelly's full theory of personal constructs is
very detailed but its main points are:
– Our construct systems make our world more
predictable
– Our construct systems can grow and change
– Our construct systems influence our expectations
and perceptions …
5

6. • Our construct system is our truth as we
understand and experience it - nobody else's
– A person's construct system represents the
truth as they understand it.
– Construct systems cannot be judged in terms
of their objective truth - whatever 'objective'
means in the world of personal feelings and
choices.
6

7. • Construct systems are not always internally
consistent
– People can and do live with a degree of
internal inconsistency within their construct
systems.
• Kelly created a way of getting people to reveal
their construct system and this is the
Repertory Grid interviewing technique.
7

8. • The term repertory derives, of course, from
repertoire - the repertoire of constructs which
the person had developed.
• Because constructs represent some form of
judgement or evaluation, by definition they
are bipolar.
8

9. • As they have become more widely used they
have dropped their theoretical trappings and
seen to be a matter of co-construction and
exploration
• And as such not suited to hypothesis testing
9

10. • Uses …
• Rep grids have been used in knowledge elicitation for
expert systems
– Shaw and Gaines, 1987, 1992
• Information system and HCI design
– e.g. Dillon and McKnight 1990;
– McCarthy and O’Connor 1998
– Turner, 2000, 2001, 2011
• Job design (e.g. Hassard, 1987)
10

11. My experience of fruit
Or, how to create a rep grid
11

12. • Select a set of elements.
• The elements are concrete examples of the
domain you wish to explore, in this
instance, fruit.

13. • So working in pairs (interviewer &
interviewee) we would aim to identify
different types of fruit (which interviewee has
eaten)
• How many – 8 is a minimum starting point

14. • Triadic construct elicitation
14

15. • Write the name of each piece of fruit on a
small piece of paper.
• Taking the elements (fruit) in groups of
three, and ask the question: ‘Can you tell me a
way in which two of these are similar and
which one is different … ?’
• A typical response might be …
– “these two are similar because they are easy to
peel whereas this one one has rough skin”
15

16. • These are the constructs
• Work through different combinations of fruit
until you have generated (say) 8 different
constructs

17. • Next step is to create a grid
• Elements rated against constructs
• A five point scale is usual
17

18. 1 2 3 4 5
sweet Orange Apple lemon sour
Peach banana
pineapple
Cheap Apple peach pineapple expensive
Orange
Banana
lemon
good to cook Apple Banana Orange bad to cook
with Lemon peach pineapple with
commonplace Apple pineapple peach exotic
Orange
Banana
Lemon
18

19. • Once entered into appropriate software the
grid is subject to a PCA and visualised
• http://repgrid.com/
19

20. Grandfather’s iPod: investigating
attachment to digital and non-
digital artefacts
Winner of best contribution award at ECCE 2011

21. • We treasure – or are attached to – artefacts of
special significance
– grandfather’s watch, baby’s hospital nametag, family
photographs, jewelry, fountain pen…
• Our lives are now populated with digital stuff
• So… are people also attached to digital stuff
• If so, how?
21

22. • Attachment: affective meaning beyond
functionality (cf. Verbeek)
• Related to ensoulment/heirloom
status/enchantment
• An artefact as an expression / extension of the self
• Relevant to sustainable interaction design (SID)
– if we are attached to objects we are less likely to
dispose of them prematurely
22

23. • SID studies …
• Key finding: people were less likely to be attached
to digital items
• However our informal surveys among students in
2009/10 suggested that this may be changing
– digital artefacts had significant personal meaning
– preserved even when long superseded
23

24. • Our study was in two stages
• Stage 1
24

25. • Group of 8 postgraduate students
• Method followed Fransella and Bannister (1977)
– Each person chose 4 digital and 4 non-digital artefacts
(elements) to which they felt some attachment
– Using the triadic approach, at least eight constructs
elicited from each participant
• Then examined the entire set of constructs and
identified the most common
25

26. • Aesthetically appealing - unremarkable
• Received as a gift - bought this myself
• Long term - short term
• Reminds me of others - no association with other people
• Personalised - generic
• Exciting - everyday
• Part of who I am - not really a part of me
• Irreplaceable - easily replaced
26

27. • Stage 2
27

28. • 55 interviewees
• Chose 4 digital and 4 non-digital possessions
(elements) to which they were attached
• Rated against the supplied constructs on a
scale of 1 to 5
• Results processed using Rep IV package
28

29. • Individual results analysed by examination of
the resulting grids
• But also selected the most common elements
– those nominated by at least 20% of the
interviewees
• Consolidated all the data into a single set of
repertory grids for the whole group
– Using the modal construct rating for each element
29

30. • Elements elicited varied widely
• Common non-digital possessions
– Jewellery, photographs, items of furniture and
clothing
– But also cars, a crochet hook and a hot-water
bottle.
• Mobile phones, mp3 players, and laptops
were the most common digital artefacts
30

31. • Individual data
• Very varied patterns of attachment
– No clear age/gender differences
• Many instances of cherished non-digital artefacts
– Jewellery, photos, some items of furniture
• People are also attached to digital artefacts too
– Phones, mp3 players, laptops
• And may construe both kinds of artefact in similar ways
31

32. Jewellery box, necklace, iPod (99009692_3) female, thirty
32

33. 33

34. Teddy bear and laptop
(08005823_3), female, early twenties
34

35. 35

36. My phone is part of me, male, mid-twenties
36

37. 37

38. Guitar, laptop & car, male, mid-twenties
38

39. 39

40. • Individual results analysed by examination of
the resulting grids
• But also selected the most common elements
– those nominated by at least 20% of the
interviewees
• Consolidated all the data into a single set of
repertory grids for the whole group
– Using the modal construct rating for each element
40

41. • Some non-digital artefacts seem distinct in
terms of the nature of attachment to them
– Watches and jewellery, photos, wallets/purses
• But the majority of both kinds of artefacts are
perceived in similar way
41

42. The 12 most common artefacts
42

43. Aggregated Data
43

44. • Fairly even distribution of the digital and non-
digital
• The area containing the poles reminds me of
others, irreplaceable, personalised, part of who I
am and aesthetically pleasing encompasses
photographs, computers, wallet/purse/bag, phon
e and watch/jewellery
• Towards the other poles of these constructs, we
find books, digital camera, furniture and TV
44

45. Aggregated focus graph
45

46. • Close pairing between watch/jewellery and
photographs, around 75%, also associated with
wallet/purse/bag
• Broader grouping at around 80%: games
console, furniture, TV, digital camera, phone, laptop
computer, mp3 player and clothing/footwear
• Again, no neat division between the digital and non-digital
• Grouping of constructs…
– strong association between ‘long term’, ‘aesthetically pleasing’
and ‘part of who I am’ at just under 80%
– weaker but still interesting association between
‘personal’, ‘irreplaceable’, ‘reminds me of others’ and ‘exciting’ 46

47. • The importance of the potential for
personalisation/appropriation
• The ‘hyper-personal’ – things which people would
not part with - such as watches, jewellery and
photographs
• Small objects - mobile phones, jewellery and MP3
players - carried close to the body may be
intimately associated with the self
47

48. • In some cases, emotional attachment is
associated with the artefact being a gift –
which reminds the owner of the giver
• In Verbeek’s terms, people are attached to
digital things themselves
– The desktop computer as ‘part of who I am’ in the
same way as photographs or jewellery
– A laptop is cherished in the same way as a teddy
bear
48

49. • We expected greater attachment to the non-digital
– Despite smart design, smart advertising and a smart brand, digital
objects are commodities, in Borgmann’s sense (Borgmann, 1984)
– Grandfather’s watch is inscribed with meaning - it is a thing
– Borgmann argues that commodities are “highly reduced entities and
abstract in the sense that within the overall framework of technology
they are free of local and historical ties’
– In contrast, things, “engage us in so many and subtle ways that no
quantification can capture them”
• Contrary to our expectations and Borgmann’s eloquence we found
no evidence to support this position
49

50. • Digital artefacts may be ensouled
• They do not pose unique design problems but
are part of a continuum of artefacts which
may be cherished or disposable
• These socially constructed, treasured artefacts
may act as boundary objects (Star 1989)
between generations
50

51. • Digital and non-digital objects both have the
potential to be things rather than
commodities (Borgmann). Or in Verbeek’s
terms, to have meaning beyond functionality
• All part of the domestic landscape of stuff
51

52. References
Borgmann, A. (1984) Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Dillon, A. and McKnight, C. (1990) Towards a classification of text types: a repertory grid approach, International Journal of Man-
Machine Studies, 33, 623-636.
Fallman, D. and Waterworth, J. (2010) Capturing user experiences of mobile information technology with the repertory grid
technique. Human Technology, 6(2), 250–268
Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. (1977) A manual for repertory grid technique, Academic Press.
Hassard, J. (1987) FOCUS: as a phenomenological technique for job analysis: its use in multiple paradigm research (MPR),
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 251-280.
Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York: Norton.
McCarthy, J.C. and O’Connor, B. (1998) The Context of Information Use in a Hospital as Simultaneous Similarity-Difference
Relations. Cognition, Technology & Work, 1(1), 25-36.
Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B. (1987) KITTEN: Knowledge elicitation and transfer tool for experts and novices, International Journal
of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 251-280.
Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B. (1992) Kelly's "Geometry of Psychological Space" and its Significance for Cognitive Modelling, The
New Psychologist, 23-31,
Turner, P. (2000) Requirements Are In The Eyes Of The Beholders, People and Computers XV – The Proceedings of HCI Conference,
33-44.
Turner, P. and Turner, S. (to appear) A Repertory Grids Investigation of Attachment to Digital and Non-Digital artefacts. Cognition,
Technology and Work.
Turner, P and Turner, S. (2011) Emotional attachment to interactive technology. Proc. European Conference on Cognitive
Ergonomics 2011
Verbeek, P-P. (2005) What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency and Design. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania
State Press
52