Biblioteca clínica

Modelos

Entra para guardar tu sesión o suscríbete para abrir la biblioteca completa. Puedes seguir gratis con fichas parciales.

¿Prefieres esperar? Déjame tu correo: te aviso cuando abra el acceso completo y tendrás precio de fundador.

TU MENTOR · ATLASAtlas de la psicoterapia
Vista
Home

Constructivist · 1981

Family Construct Psychology

A family is organised not only by patterns of interaction but by networks of reciprocal constructs that make it predictable who each member can be for the others.

Harry Procter's Family Construct Psychology is a constructivist clinical framework that extends George Kelly's Personal Construct Psychology into the relational and systemic field. Its central contribution is to hold that personal meanings cannot be fully understood as isolated properties of separate individuals, because they are shaped, maintained and transformed within relational matrices of mutual anticipation. The family is understood as a network of positions, perspectives and reciprocal constructions in which each member anticipates the others and anticipates themselves from relatively stable relational places. The clinical focus is not on locating an “identified patient” as the bearer of the problem, but on understanding how a system of shared, complementary or conflicting constructs stabilises particular experiences, symptoms, roles and dilemmas. Procter thus integrates Kelly's constructivist epistemological core with a systemic sensitivity to relational positions, the coordination of meanings and the organisation of the family system, so that intervention seeks to widen alternative constructions, make rigid positions more flexible and foster more viable forms of relationship, identity and mutual anticipation.

Theory of change

Change occurs when a family can make visible, review and loosen the reciprocal constructions that fix roles, symptoms and relational identities.

Core ideas

  1. Meaning is simultaneously personal and relational

    Procter extends Personal Construct Psychology by holding that meanings cannot be understood solely as individual constructions but as phenomena generated, validated and transformed within relational networks. The unit of clinical analysis shifts from the isolated individual to the system of mutual anticipations in which each person takes part. (Procter, 1981; Procter, 1985).

  2. The family functions as a system of reciprocal anticipations

    Family behaviour is explained not only by observable interaction but by how each member anticipates what the others will do and who they are within the system. These anticipations guide behaviour and tend to be confirmed, generating stable patterns that can maintain problems even when they are dysfunctional. (Procter, 1985).

  3. Identity is positional and co-constructed

    The self is not a purely internal entity; it is configured in relatively stable relational positions within the family system. Each member occupies places that are recognised and sustained by the others, so that identity is built and limited by these shared positions. (Procter, 1985; Procter & Winter, 2020).

  4. Family roles are reciprocal constructions, not individual traits

    Roles such as “the strong one”, “the weak one” or “the problematic one” do not belong to individuals in themselves but emerge from relational configurations in which each position requires and maintains other complementary positions. Change means modifying these configurations, not only the individual who embodies them. (Procter, 1985).

  5. The symptom is intelligible within the organisation of the system

    Problem behaviours or symptoms are not isolated anomalies but responses that make sense within the network of family constructs. They serve functions of regulation, expression or stabilisation of the system, so that addressing them effectively requires understanding their place within the relational organisation of meaning. (Procter, 1985).

  6. Relational invalidation maintains suffering

    Distress intensifies when a member's experience is systematically invalidated or redefined by others, preventing their personal constructs from being recognised within the system. This invalidation limits the capacity to construct alternatives and reinforces rigid, defensive positions. (Procter, 1981; Procter & Winter, 2020).

  7. Change requires widening shared alternative constructions

    Therapeutic change does not consist of substituting one interpretation for another, but of widening the repertoire of constructions available to members of the system so that they can coordinate in more flexible ways. This involves negotiating meanings and allowing multiple perspectives to coexist without the system collapsing. (Procter, 1981; Procter, 1985).

  8. Intervention focuses on the system of meaning, not only on interaction

    Unlike certain systemic approaches centred on behavioural patterns, Procter places the focus on the structures of meaning that organise those patterns. Behaviour changes when the way members construe the relationship changes, not merely when the interactional sequence is modified. (Procter, 1985).

  9. Therapy is a space for the relational reconstruction of knowledge

    The therapeutic process functions as a context in which members can observe, compare and reconstruct their personal and family construct systems. The therapist does not impose interpretations but facilitates the emergence of new ways of understanding one another that make more viable reorganisations of the system possible. (Procter, 1985; Procter & Winter, 2020).

Influences

  • Personal Construct Theory (PCP)
  • Phenomenology / Hermeneutics
  • Systemic therapy
  • Cybernetics and communication theory

Key references

  • Procter, H. (1981). Family Construct Psychology: An approach to understanding and treating families.
  • Procter, H. (1985). A construct approach to family therapy and systems intervention.
  • Procter, H. (1985). Repertory grids in family therapy and research.
  • Procter, H., & Winter, D. A. (2020). Personal and Relational Construct Psychotherapy.
  • Feixas, G. (2010). Los constructos personales en la práctica sistémica.