Greta Thunberg

MARINDUQUE STATE COLLEGE
School of Arts and Sciences

Tanza, Boac, Marinduque
Darren F. Ricohermoso October 2, 2019

BA Communication 2A
SOCIO-CULTURAL TRADITION:
An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg
The letter addressed to Greta Thunberg was successfully written because the writer was
able to speak out what she really want to express and discuss about. Also, she successfully reached
her goal to tell her opinion as it is her intention to do why she intended to wrote a letter to Greta.
It is very hard for me to choose only one tradition in the field of communication theory that
best suits to this letter because I think that it is not supported by only one tradition. But in my own
perception, I think that the letter was best supported and explained by Socio-cultural tradition.
Maybe it is not the only tradition that suits to this but I will discuss my point of view of choosing
this tradition below.
The Socio-cultural tradition tells that from our interaction with the community or social
groups, we are able to understand the world, relate to and create reality. In this matter, we can say
that our own identity was constructed through our interaction to other people. But it is not only
about the interaction to other, we should also remember that our consciousness on the events and
different happenings on our society was included in this. In relation to the letter, I can say that it
is very appropriate to the said tradition. First, I would like to talk about how Greta was described
by the writer in her letter which I considered Greta Thunberg as a kind-hearted women as how she
cares for the nature. The writer mentioned how angry and fear Greta was because of the injustice
that our nature suffers from. I believe that Greta would not be able to come up in this idea as she
delivered her speech if she did not even noticed those happenings in her society. As the socio-
cultural tradition explains, Greta has been very observable on her surroundings that she was able
to see the wrong deeds of the humans that leads on the sufferings of the nature. And because of
this, I believed that she learned from what she saw and this is the reason that drives Greta to speaks
out and encourage other people to wake up and be aware of the happenings in today’s world. As a
result of her speech, the writer is one of the people who is being inspired and influenced by Greta.
The writer wrote the letter because she is also aware of the sufferings of the nature. She also cares
for the nature that she was also able to be observant on the happenings in their society where she
is also contradicts to the evil deeds of the human that ruin the nature. This maybe happened because
of her interaction to other people where she was able to know better the happenings in the
surroundings also through the idea of other that she interacted with.
Second, the socio-cultural tradition also reminds us that people interacts with other based
on his/her culture which is also can be observed in the letter. I believed that Greta was come up to
the concept of delivering her speech on what she is fighting for based on the culture she had.
Maybe one of the reason why she is eager to win her fight is because she had the culture of being
concerned in nature because there are lots of people who really cares for the nature and also being
MSC Mission: Marinduque State College is committed to pursue progressive MSC Vision: Marinduque State College is a
and innovative lifelong education founded on humanistic, professional and research-driven higher education institution
technologically advanced programs across cultures and communities by pursuing excellence and innovation by 2025.
establishing centers of excellence and development and research-driven
outreach programs.
affected as they are aware of the sufferings of the nature. It I because they have the culture that
they believed and it is the sense of valuing and respecting that culture why they are doing it.
Lastly, it is also stated in the socio-cultural tradition that it is the communication as the
creation and enactment of social reality wherein it is also related to the letter. Though it is not
stated there the speech of Greta, I can imagine her speech and also, the writer obviously intended
to give us the main reason and context of the speech. In my opinion, Greta used what she observed
happenings in nature which is the social reality as the main concept of her speech to communicate
to other people. In that way, she maybe encourage other people who are concerned in nature which
is what she fight for to create another social reality. Using the culture of Greta which she applied
on her speech as she communicate to other people, she wanted for the people to adapt her own
culture regarding of being concern in all the happenings in the society that leads in suffering of the
Mother Nature. In this view, there is a culture produced which is also stated in this tradition which
says that communication produces and reproduces cultures.
UKEssays logo
Essays
Psychology
Personal construct theory
2296 words (9 pages) Essay in Psychology
09/05/17 Psychology Reference this
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work
produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
In social psychology, individual difference research aims to find out why individuals act
differently in the same scenarios (Butt, 2007). This essay will be looking at two different theories,
Kelly’s (1955, cited in Butt, 2007; Stevens, 2002) personal construct theory and Eysenck and
Rathman’s (1965, cited in Butt, 2007) trait theory of personality, which study and interpret
individual differences to personality in two different ways. This essay will outline both of the
theories and then will use trait theory to critique personal construct theory. This essay will critically
assess the strengths and weaknesses of personal constructs theory’s contribution to our
understanding of individual differences in personality. It will argue that the strength of the personal
construct theory is that it gives a much more holistic contribution to our understanding of
individual differences in personality than the trait theory, although unlike the trait theory, its
outreach programs.
weakness is that its findings can not be generalised. Personal construct theory also has strength in
that it transcends the individual-social and agency-structure dualisms which the trait theory does
not.
The personal construct theory (Kelly 1955, cited in Butt, 2007; Stevens, 2002) is an
approach which sees personality as an individual’s experience which, in turn, informs their world
view. It advocates bipolar constructs that individuals use to help them understand their world, for
example, stimulating-dull (Stevens, 2002). Personal construct theory uses the phenomenological
approach and therefore aims to understand how individuals use their subjective, individual
experiences to develop a set of personal constructions, which in turn, helps them to make sense of
their world around them (Butt, 2004). This helps researchers to understand the individuals lived
experience, how they make meaning and how they come to view the world in different ways (Butt,
2007, cited in Butt, 2007). Personal construct theory therefore sees individual differences to
personality as recognising and taking account of each individuals world view and the conscious
role they have in creating the individual they become (Butt, 2007; Stevens, 2002).
To investigate each individuals set of personal constructs, Kelly (1955, cited in Butt, 2007)
developed the repertory grid. This grid worked by individuals allocating personal constructs to
everyone who they considered part of their life. This subsequently allows the bipolar dimensions
to be found. When analysing these constructions, it could be revealed how each individual
experiences others and could show how two different individuals could make an entirely different
assessment of the same person, for example, if an individual is rigid in their constructs they could
come to believe that an individual who is reserved is always cold and so having a rigid personality
could cause many relationship problems compared to having a fluid personality.
A lot of constructing occurs subconsciously so the grid allows individuals to gain and
communicate their own individual meanings of things that would otherwise be unavailable to
them. Personal construct theory sees constructs as being adjustable and, by seeing themselves
through another’s eyes, individuals could make conscious decisions to change their personality
and view of the world (Butt, 2007). But Kelly (1955, cited in Butt, 2007) argued that as much
effort is placed in these constructions the individual may not want to change them.
The main parts of personal construct theory were usefully applied by Salmon (2003, cited
in Butt, 2007) to education. Salmon (2003, cited in Butt, 2007) argued that to facilitate personal
development, schools needed to take into account the student’s current personal constructs and the
student’s also needed to be aware of their own personal constructs. Salmon (2003, cited in Butt,
2007) later developed the Salmon line, which allowed the student’s a tool to see how they were
progressing using their own meanings about progression.
outreach programs.
In contrast to the personal construct theory, Eysenck and Rathman’s (1965, cited in Butt,
2007) trait theories see individual differences in personality as due to biological and genetic
factors, they advocated the use of the dimensions of extraversion-introversion and neuroticism-
stability which they argued could be used predict how individuals would behave in certain
situations (Butt, 2007). Eysenck and Rathman’s (1965, cited in Butt, 2007) trait theory came from
the experimental, scientific mainstream approach to individual differences (Butt, 2007), its aim
was to find general dimensions from various populations of individuals to allow predictions to be
made about how a certain individual would act in a given situations. The trait theory therefore sees
individual differences to personality as the fixed ways that individuals vary from each other (Butt,
2007).
To investigate each individual’s traits, Eysenck and Rathman’s (1965, cited in Butt, 2007)
trait theory of personality measured personality traits by using data gained from Eysenck’s
personality inventory, which was then used to produce psychometric inventories (Eysenck and
Eysenck, 1963, cited in Butt, 2007). Eysenck and Rathman’s (1965, cited in Butt, 2007) research
led them to claim that there were two, main, unrelated dimensions of personality: extraversion and
neuroticism and that these were behavioural expressions of temperament differences (Butt, 2007).
They claimed that extraversion was grounded in cortical arousal and neuroticism was grounded in
autonomic arousal, so the behavioural patterns were like the phenotype in biology, whereas the
innate brain structure is like the genotype (Butt, 2007). Eysenck reasoned that if the main
dimensions in personality were found, these could have clinical application as they could be related
to different kinds of neurotic behaviour which would explain why individuals acquire different
types of psychological disorders (Butt, 2007).
Now both theories have been outlined, showing two different ways of viewing personality,
this essay will now critically analyse the strengths and weaknesses of personal construct theory
using the trait theory of personality. Trait theory has been seen as a more suitable way than personal
construct theory of looking at personality as it resembles the lay theories that individuals use when
assessing others (Butt, 2007). Trait theory has also been around for a long time and therefore has
been researched a lot, has been very influential and has been tested extensively; this is unlike the
personal construct theory which has been around for a relatively shorter period of time and so has
been lacking in the same areas. Trait theories also use objective personality measurements, like
the Eysenck personality inventory, and this allows for large groups of individuals to be compared.
This subsequently gives trait theory a wide scope for application as the trait theory findings can be
used by organisations that need to identify trends in certain populations (Hollway, 2007). In
comparison, personal construct theory data can not be generalised or compared across the wider
population.
outreach programs.
But trait theory has got its weaknesses. Skinner (1974, cited in Butt, 2007) argued that traits
do not explain personality or behaviour; they just identify trends in it. Also, whilst the trait theory
was designed to see the different, but consistent, ways individuals react in certain situations (Butt,
2007), Mischel (1968, cited in Butt, 2007) argued that the evidence for this consistency is small
and individuals actually change over time. Mischel (1968, cited in Butt, 2007) also suggests that
rather than entirely reflecting the individual’s personality traits, trait theory is strongly influenced
by the thoughts, experiences and personality of the individual rating.
The strength of objectivity within the trait theory, although helpful when comparing
population, can also be viewed as a weakness of the theory. Personal construct theory data is
subjective and situated in time and place unlike trait theory data which is taken out of its context
making it ecologically invalid. The personal construct theory also takes into account the richness
of an individual’s personality (Butt, 2007) which the trait theory does not. Using phenomenology,
personal construct theory attempts to see the distinctiveness of each individual’s personality.
Personal construct theory accepts that the individual can change and society can facilitate this
change. This allows them to understand why individuals change depending on the situation and
when that situation occurs and how this happens.
Adaptations of personal construct theory also see how change can happen in the future;
this is shown in Salmon’s (2003, cited in Butt, 2007) modification of the personal construct theory
which has helped facilitate learning. Her ‘Salmon line’ also allowed individuals to give themselves
a goal and see what they needed to change in their personality to reach that goal. The trait theory,
however, sees traits as biological and therefore fixed and unlikely to change. This means that it
can not be used to assist changes in personality so has less practical uses than the personal construct
theory. Unlike the personal construct theory, trait theory also does not take into account how an
individual’s social life could influence the individual’s personality.
Another strength of the personal construct theory is that it does not have the same extent
of power relations plaguing it as the trait theory does. Personal construct theory uses qualitative
interview methods which stop the researcher from having so much power over the findings of the
research (Salmon, 2003, cited in Butt, 2007). The researcher uses the repertory grid to help each
individual access their own personal constructs, in this way the researcher is prevented from
assuming what the individual’s constructs will be. Trait theorists, however, have lots of power
over the individual. This is because the trait theory comes from the experimental approach. This
means that the researchers that measure and put apply these measurements, for example, to create
hierarchies in schools. Trait theory is misguided as individuals can be judged against what is
outreach programs.
considered ‘normal’ and ‘competent’ by people who they believe are experts on the subject (Butt,
2007).
But, personal construct theory also has its weaknesses because they do not use
classification methods like the trait theories do and therefore they can not help an individual to get
extra help, for example, if they need to be classified to get help with a split-personality. The
personal construct theory also tried to make the researcher try to see the world through the
participant’s eyes in order to help the participant express their constructs. But sometimes this
would be impossible for the researcher, especially if they are working with an individual with a
personality problem that they have no experience of.
In looking into the individual-social and agency-structure dualisms it can be seen that in
trait theory there is an emphasis on the biological aspects of personality (Eysenck and Rathman,
1965, cited in Butt, 2007) which sees personality as fixed and coming from within the individual.
But by concentrating on the individual and trying to find universal findings, the main aspect of
what makes each individual’s personality unique becomes lost. In education, psychometric
measures have been used in such a way that teacher’s do nothing more than teach students how to
pass tests. Salmon argued that by testing students, learning becomes generalised and the student’s
ability level becomes fixed as students become grouped depending on how they are subsequently
graded on tests. This grading does not take into account the individual personality of each student.
In personal construct theory, students are no longer seen as fixed in their abilities, Salmon argued
that children do not learn in the ways stated above, instead they shift their meanings within a
personal system of understandings. In this way each individual student’s personality could be such
that they are good at and enjoy some types of learning and could be bad at and hate other types.
So the personal construct theory has the strength of transcending the individual-society dualism.
Also way that trait theory sees traits as fixed, determined, genetic and unchanging through
environments also suggests that individuals have no agency in their personality traits and social
structures did not affect their personality traits whatsoever. In the personal construct theory, Kelly
(1965, 2007, cited in Butt, 2007), for example, put great emphasis on the society that individuals
are constructed in. People were seen to use their experiences to actively create their worlds, even
though these constructs and understandings that were gained from the social world sometimes
restrict agency. So the personal construct theory has the strength of transcending the agency-
structure dualism.
Personal construct theory (Kelly, 1955, cited in Butt, 2007; Stevens, 2002) and the trait
theory of personality (Eysenck and Rathman, 1965, cited in Butt, 2007) are two different
approaches to individual differences in personality which contribute two different explanations to
outreach programs.
why people act in different ways in the same sort of situations (Butt, 2007). The strength of the
personal construct theory is that it gives a much more detailed, holistic contribution to our
understanding of individual differences in personality than the trait theory which sees personality
as fixed and biologically determined. Personal construct theory however sees individuals as having
a fluid personality which changes through the individual interacting with their social world. This
has contributed to individuals understandings of personality by showing them how they can change
their constructions (i.e. the repertory grid). But, personal construct theory has a weakness as its
findings can not be generalised like the trait theory can. So, although both theories contribute much
to our understandings of individual differences to personality, personal construct theory has a
greater contribution as it is more holistic and recognises that the social world and the individual’s
agency play a vital role in personality which is something that trait theory does not (Butt, 2007).
outreach programs.

Greta Thunberg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greta Thunberg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARINDUQUE STATE COLLEGE

School of Arts and Sciences

Darren F. Ricohermoso October 2, 2019

09/05/17 Psychology Reference this

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are

You might also like