Contructivismo


Volume 5, Issue 3, Spring 2002
Constructivism in Psychology: Personal Construct Psychology, Radical Constructivism, and Social Constructionism
Jonathan D. Raskin
Department of Psychology
State University of New York at New Paltz
75 South Manheim Boulevard
New Paltz, New York 12561, USA
raskinj@newpaltz.edu
Printer-friendly PDF version

This essay also appeared in: Raskin, J. D.(2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. In J. D. Raskin & S. K. Bridges (Eds.), Studies in meaning: Exploring constructivist psychology (pp. 1-25). New York: Pace University Press.
Introduction: Once Upon a Construction
The constructivist psychologies theorize about and investigate how human beings create systems formeaningfully understanding their worlds and experiences.  I refer to these “constructivisms” using the plural because there are many varieties of constructivism (Neimeyer & Raskin, 2001) and they have been described in various constellations (Botella, 1995; Chiari & Nuzzo, 1996a, 1996b; Lyddon, 1995; Mahoney, 1988, 1991, 1995; Rosen, 1996; Sexton, 1997). Depending upon how one chooses to carve outcategories of constructivism, one finds differing areas of commonality and divergence. Regardless, the constructivist psychologies have grown immensely in quantity and influence over the past fifty years, originating in a variety of theoretical and research venues that have slowly developed greater contact with each other and with psychology at large.  In fact, as the 21st Century begins,constructivist psychologists find themselves standing at the crossroads, ready to make their mark on the broader discipline of psychology.  However, despite their steadily growing influence, constructivist psychologies have not evolved into a single, coherent, theoretically consistent orientation. Given numerous theoretical differences, there is not even agreement among constructivist psychologists thatarriving at a singularly recognizable orientation is desirable. Nevertheless, some constructivist psychologists’ efforts to form a loosely confederated constructivist theoretical orientation have made inroads into mainstream psychology, as evidenced by the publication of several constructivist-themed volumes by the American Psychological Association (Neimeyer, 2001; Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1995;Neimeyer & Raskin, 2000). Even so, constructivist psychologists—perhaps due to their different historical and theoretical ancestries—have yet to make the same impact on psychology as earlier movements, such as psychoanalysis, radical behaviorism, cognitive psychology, and humanistic psychology. It seems that many American psychologists and students are still unfamiliar with constructivism, as evidencedby its exclusion from most psychology textbooks. This exclusion can at least in part be attributed to confusion about what constitutes constructivism. One comes across so many varieties of constructivist psychology that even the experts seem befuddled. Terms like “constructivism,” “constructionism,” and “constructive” are employed so idiosyncratically and inconsistently that at times they seem todefy definition.  If the precise differences between the constructivist psychologies escape those who identify themselves as being “in the fold,” one can only imagine how bewildered non-constructivist psychologists must be. This is unfortunate because it undermines the possibility that constructivist ideas will attract a larger audience.
In light of these concerns, this paper attempts to clarifysimilarities and differences among three key constructivist psychologies. I describe “personal construct psychology,” “radical constructivism,” and “social constructionism.” I suggest—as has Lyddon (1995)—that the commonalities among these approaches outweigh the points of divergence. Highlighting this common ground should be useful to both psychologists and non-psychologists. I contend that all...