RE: Constructs and attitudes

Lindsay Oades (
29 Jun 1996 17:53:49 +1000

Hello to Rainer, Rolf, Robin, Duane, Lois and Bob et al,
I awoke yesterday morning to a long list of discussion surrounding constructs
and attitudes! I have read and reread each of them. I would like to take the
Blanchardian challenge of responding to each and every point however this will
take too long. I feel the need to respond as I asked the initial question.
Unfortunately however I am off to the Australasian PCP conference and hence
wont be around after this post. Hopefully however I will return to clear
coherent solutions to every issue discussed ;-) ;-) Please keep the
conversation going.
I regret leaving the conversation.

Lindsay Oades

From: on Fri, 28 Jun 1996 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Constructs and attitudes
RFC Header:Received: by with SMTP;28 Jun 1996 08:01:15 +1000
Received: from (
[]) by (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA15543;
Fri, 28 Jun 1996 07:54:53 +1000 (EST)
Received: by id <>
(8.6.12/ for; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:18:58 +0100
Received: from by id
(8.6.12/ for with SMTP; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:18:23 +0100
Received: from AD1/SMTPQueue by (Mercury 1.11);
Fri, 28 Jun 96 9:14:32 +1300
Received: from Mailqueue by AD1 (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 28 Jun 96 9:14:14 +1300
Received: from TWP.AC.NZ by; Fri, 28 Jun 96 09:33 GMT
From: "Robin Hill" <>
Content-Type: text
Organization: The Waikato Polytechnic
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:14:13 +1300
Subject: Re: Constructs and attitudes
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01)
Message-ID: <>
X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave pcp'
Precedence: list

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I have held the impression that
behaviours represent the subordinate constructs in a person's system -
the behavioural reflections of abstract, conceptual superordinate constructs,
and linked to them by implications (in the sense of Hinkle). The bipolar
construct that I tend to use to construe these subordinate, behavioural
constructs has something to do with "approach --- avoidance." Hence I
tend to see behaviours in terms of the the objects, symbols, environments,
and circumstances we choose to approach versus avoid, and the actions
we engage in in this regard. I tend to see them also as the
behaviours we might predictably engage in, should we know what the
superordinate constructs are. (I have a sympathy for construing some
people's personal stress, or "troubles" in terms of "approach --- avoidance
conflicts." )

What I'm trying to say, I think, is that I view behaviours as
subordinate manifestations directly linked (albeit in a step-wise
fashion - identified through Laddering Technique or similar) with
superordinate constructs (core constructs, values etc.). When I can
identify and illustrate a person's construct system, as related to a
specific context, showing their superordinate constructs, the
behaviours they choose to engage in, plus alternative behaviours
that they might engage in, then I tend to feel that I have _their_
personal (implicit?) motivation theory set out in front of me. It
seems to me that this should be fairly predicitive of the behaviours
they actually engage in.

If you think this is just blurb, then thats OK. I'm not sure if
there is any theoretical support for this. I think its just an
impression I've picked up along the way. I've never put any of these
ideas to the test (formally as research - maybe I have personally),
but thought I'd pitch my feelings into the ring, anyway.

Dr. Robin Hill

Senior Lecturer & Research Leader
Department of Business Studies
The Waikato Polytechnic
Private Bag 3036
Hamilton 2020
New Zealand