You are here: Home > Reformulation > Spring 2004 [Issue 21] > The Use of the Dyad Grid in CAT - An Example

The Use of the Dyad Grid in CAT - An Example

Bristow, J., 2004. The Use of the Dyad Grid in CAT - An Example. Reformulation, Spring, pp.22-30.

---

The Use of the Dyad Grid in CAT - An Example

Introduction and Overview
I have had an interest in personal construct theory and the repertory grid as a method for some time, and used it in helping people in work settings; I have always felt an affinity too with the way the theory can be brought into psychotherapy and counselling (see Fay Fransella and Peggy Dalton 2000) to help people have different experiences. I was intrigued when first reading about how Tony Ryle used the grid for exploring with people in therapy how they construed ways of relating adopted by themselves toward others and others towards them in specific dyadic relationships, the “dyad grid” (e.g. pp 184-190 in A. Ryle 1982). He illustrated there how it could be used to identify reciprocal role procedures and dilemmas in relationships, and to compare the self-to-self relationship with relationships with others. It seemed to be another example of how CAT can look at patterns derived from object relations in a language that can be understood and used by the patient. I need to point out that Tony Ryle developed this use of the dyad grid many years before CAT (A. Ryle and M.E.Lunghi 1970), and that Tony Ryle was a grid user but not a “personal construct theory person”. But the grid led to the first use of the term reciprocal role, and contributed to CAT’s development.

When ACAT arranged with Finn Tschudi that we could buy the software for £50 to analyse the grids produced with our patients on our own then I immediately wanted to try it out. I have been doing this now for about a year and tried the dyad grid with six people, with support and guidance on interpretation, through e-mail correspondence, from Tony Ryle, and on the use of the software from Finn Tschudi. I am very grateful to them both. I am writing this to share my experience with others, and will use one example case for which I have the patient’s agreement.

First I will describe what the repertory grid method is, and the dyad grid in particular, and then how I used it in therapy. I will illustrate by reference to the case example throughout. I will end by summarising how I found it useful in therapy and how I see it also as contributing to research.

The “Grid”: Method and Output
A construct is the product of our own construing processes; something we create in order to make sense of our experience, anticipate events and adapt to the world. Constructs can be pre-verbal, pre-conscious and experienced in the body, or as a feeling and a thought as well. (See the text box for a brief description of personal construct theory, constructs and how they are formed and organised).

The repertory grid is a method devised by Kelly to elicit and explore more systematically and precisely a client’s repertoire of constructs and the relationships between them. The grid is a way of using numbers to describe these relationships by asking someone to rate what is being construed (called an “element”), within a domain of experience, on a set of constructs (normally up to 15 or so) that relate to it. By arraying the elements along the top of a table and the constructs down the side, the ratings can be entered in a table that resembles a “grid”. These ratings then provide data for a statistical analysis of the relationships between the constructs and the elements. In a dyad grid each element is the way one person relates to another in a dyadic relationship:

	mother to father	mother to self	self to mother	self to self (etc.)
Looks After
Controls
etc.

Elements are elicited with the client according to the aims of the enquiry so that they are representative and relevant. 8 to 10 can be enough. With the dyad grid there are usually 4 pairs of elements that are “supplied” or given – mother/father, self/mother, self/father and self to self now and self to self as I would like it to be. Another 6 pairs are chosen together, including siblings, friends, past or current partners, work colleagues liked/disliked etc as relevant. So there are often 20 elements altogether.

As constructs are derived from experience of similarity and difference they can be elicited by comparing elements (3, if using the triad method), and asking which 2 are similar and in what way they differ from the third. As constructs are essentially bi-polar the client is then asked what the opposite would be. As constructs are hierarchically organised you can then explore up the hierarchy by asking which of the two poles is preferable and why or down the hierarchy by asking for examples of either pole. Hierarchically organised constructs can be drawn in pyramid form. There are other ways of eliciting constructs too.

In using the dyad grid there are 10 descriptors (constructs) supplied already as they have been found to be significant in a number of relationships (see Ryle 82). This also allows us to collect normative data. But there is the opportunity to add others (usually up to six) that are particularly relevant to the patient. By the time I come to using the grid in a CAT I have elicited these through simply identifying and agreeing some key reciprocal roles. I do not usually define the opposite pole of these constructs but simply use “not” (e.g. denigrating – not denigrating) so that it conforms with the supplied constructs.

I have introduced the dyad grid after the reformulation letter. We choose together the people in relationship to each other (elements) and the role descriptors (constructs) to add, and the ratings are completed as homework (usually taking around one hour). At the same time the diagram (SDR) is being completed. I have wanted to do this before we see the results of the grid, so that it is not at this stage influenced by them.

I enter the grid results into my computer using the Flexigrid software. This takes about 20 minutes. I can get an output immediately. I then copy this into Word so that I can edit it and e-mail it to people who do not have Flexigrid. I can then adjust the page set up and page breaks, font size etc to suit my requirements and add in the lines that join up the elements that belong to the same dyad.

The output is in the form of a report giving statistical data and a graph that plots the position of the elements (self or other in relationships) relative to the constructs on the main dimensions on which the elements differ (Principle Components Analysis). In relation to the elements the constructs can be closely associated (correlated) or not. Where constructs cluster together in this way they form a key dimension of roles and behaviour on which the elements (people in dyadic relationships) differ. Where constructs are not correlated in any way they belong to a different dimension. The graph gives the main dimensions around which the elements differ and the constructs cluster. Graphs of other dimensions can be plotted too. But one graph of the main two is usually enough, and the amount of the difference (variance) accounted for is given.

An example of this graph with the case I am using is given on the adjoining page in Figure 1. The elements are self in relation to “x” and “x” in relation to self, and the letters or names show where these are positioned in the graph; the lines joining them show which are paired up in dyads (“x” – self). There are two elements that are not joined by lines, self to self now (lower right quadrant) and self to self desired (upper left quadrant). There are 7 dyads that are not involving parents or self. These are a partner (P), an elder brother (B), male and female friends (FM, FF) and a male and female work colleague (CM, CF). S is for Self. Elements are given letters, positioned in the graph and listed at the side in a Flexigrid printout.

Component one (27% of the variance) is right to left, high on the right and low on the left. Component two (26%) of the variance is high at the bottom and low at the top. The constructs (role descriptors in the dyad grid) are set out in the margins in rank order of their association with that component (brackets denote constructs associated with both). In the normal report the constructs are given code numbers which are also positioned in the graph

Constructs that are highest on component one are on the far right side, and define it: hiding and anxiously protecting, not controlling, giving in to, not showing trust and feeling guilty to. This the patient had described as typical of the role his mother takes, and this can be seen on the graph (mother to father).

The second component (high at the bottom) is defined by constructs: looking down on and denigrating, not forgiving, not looking after, not encouraging, not respecting, blaming. This the patient had described as typical of his father in relation to himself – and his mother.

Where dyad lines of two relationships are parallel one can conclude that the two relationships are similar, indicating a general pattern in relating, a reciprocal role procedure. Many of them are top right (looking after, giving in to, not controlling and anxiously protecting) to bottom left (controlling, not looking after, not encouraging). Self to others is mainly in the top right quadrant, indicating that he typically adopts this role towards others, similar to his mother’s to his father.

“Self to self now” is lower right - anxiously protecting, not showing trust, feeling guilty to, denigrating, not forgiving, getting cross with – and similar to how he perceived his father’s role behaviour towards him (and elder borther’s). This contrasts with how he would like to be in relation to himself – the opposite, the top left quadrant. So in relation to others he has internalised his mother’s role and in relation to himself, his father’s. These two reciprocal role procedures were the same as those described in the SDR. The grid here clarified them, and how they operated, further.

Some of the dyads are in different quadrants or with the one member (e.g. other-to-self) in a different quadrant. Self with partner and self with male colleague are in the most positive quadrant: respecting, not feeling guilty to, not blaming, seeking help from, not giving in to, forgiving, showing trust, but also feeling inferior to. Self with partner is similar to self with mother, though less giving in to or anxiously protecting (further to the left).

Where the lines between the members of the dyad are shorter this means that the behaviour of one towards the other is more similar or symmetrical, less differentiated – perhaps collusive (see self with father, brother or male colleague). Where they are longer the roles are more distinct, complementary, (father and mother, self with old friends – perhaps selected for their difference); often indicating some conflict or hostility. More mature positive relationships have short-ish lines (usually about an inch on this format) – as with self and partner on this graph.

After looking at the graph the next key piece of information to look for is the correlation or distance between constructs. This can in CAT terms indicate where there may be some dilemmas. For this the self to other elements are analysed in a separate report using Flexigrid. (The graph and distances between constructs for the role of others towards self can also be of interest). If there is a close association between constructs it can be described as “if-then” (e.g. if dependent on then giving in to). If there is distance between them it can be described as “either – or”. We can see here that where these associations are unusually close or distant there could be dilemmas. To see if the closeness or distance between self-to-other constructs are unusual, norms are needed. Here I have used those collected by Tony Ryle, see Table 1. The closer the distances, the lower the number and the more distant the higher. Anything outside the normal range (SD or a standard deviation either way) is highlighted in table 2.

Table 1 DYAD GRID NORMS for Angular Distances (Ryle 1982) Mean, Standard Deviation and Average Range, with Construct Code Numbers

	Gets Cross With 7	Gives In To 9	Controls 4	Is Dependent On 6
Looks After 1	93 SD 30 (63-123)	73 SD 20 (53-93)	74 SD 25 (49-99)	73 SD 23 (50-96)
Is Dependent On 6	89 SD 20 (69-109)	64 SD 21 (43-85)	83 SD 23 (60-106)
Controls 4	79 SD 29 (50-108)	96 SD 24 (72-120)
Gives In To 9	90 SD 18 (72-108)

Table 2 Angular Distances between Self-to-Other Constructs (1st Grid) (Highlighted if outside average)

	Gets Cross With 7	Gives In To 9	Controls 4	Is Dependent On 6
Looks After 1	96.4	106.8	60.0	110.7
Is Dependent On 6	80.9	52.2	110.7
Controls 4	90.0	106.8
Gives In To 9	49.8

From the unusually distant associations between self to other constructs it can be see that there is an overall either – or dilemma. “Either look after and stay in control - or depend on, lose control and give into”. There is an if-then dilemma from the one unusually close association: “If give in to then get cross with”. Put in another way: faced with a relationship, the cost of depending is to lose control, and, what is more, giving in makes him cross.  The result is the inability to risk dependency or to pay a price for it.

The Contribution of the Dyad Grid to CAT:
A Case Example

I will illustrate here how I found the dyad grid helpful in providing a clearer focus to the therapy, the diagram and what needed to change to address the target problems, - and in assessing progress towards the end when it was used again to see what had changed.

Steve is a professional man in his late 30’s. He came to therapy as he was suffering from a pervasive and frequent bleak, depressive state, anxiety in his social relations and work role, and underlying all this a lack of a sense of his own identity.

Feeling a lack of substance in himself he hides behind a helping or performing role with others, and finds it hard to be spontaneous and authentic for fear of his emptiness being exposed and being rejected or abandoned. This is particularly when he feels a strong need for people’s acceptance or respect, and is in this way dependent. He can then either give in and seek to please and end up feeling drained and cross or retains control through looking after and protecting others.

In relation to himself he has little confidence but to compensate for his sense of emptiness can have over-ambitious goals. In fear of trying and failing and being exposed, he either procrastinates or acts impulsively in a flurry of activity that is not sustained. Any success he discounts as this he feels would be threatening to his father and family, and he strongly criticises himself in a denigrating way, so confirming his negative view of himself. This maintains him in a bleak state of despair – which he feels is safer and easier to manage than hope, failure and exposure to shame, an “indelible stain”.

These patterns stem from the reciprocal roles of denigrating (from his father) which he has internalised towards himself, and anxiously protecting from his mother which he internalises in looking after others and protecting himself. These are shown in the diagram (Figure 2).

The dyad grid helped me to understand how the self-denigrating state that maintained the bleak despair was so ingrained in him and connected with his identification with his father. It clarified the dilemma in his relations with others around risking dependency and losing control or looking after others and staying hidden but in control. The diagram was altered slightly to bring this out more in the self-with-other patterns. Above all it clarified and confirmed the focus of the therapy and the desired change: to be more caring and respecting towards himself, less unforgiving and denigrating, and so to know and accept himself better and have a more balanced view of himself as a result, and be less afraid of exposure; and so to be able to be himself more with others, and be able to tolerate others criticising, disliking or being envious of him – and therefore not to lose control and be submissive when dependent in some way.

In grid terms I would expect to see his self to self now in a different position in the graph, further away from the denigrating, and in relation to others, less giving in and being out of control with others on whom he is dependent - and getting cross a result, (with the unusual distance or closeness between these constructs to have changed).

Steve told me how he interpreted the grid and I incorporated this in a one page summary that also highlighted the dilemmas. He described component one as his mother’s behaviour towards him, and recognised how he adopted it towards others: “Indirectly controlling through keeping me as a child and through anxiously protecting me, and not trusting me to look after myself. This is associated also with the fear of the other showing me up or leaving me behind.” The second component he described as: “Unable to forgive, respect or encourage me; looking after me is too difficult – I have to do it myself. Being diminished by another’s success and shamed by his own failure, can be denigrating”. He recognised how he takes this attitude to himself.

He recalled and recounted vivid dreams at this time and could see how they often reflected the states of mind – indeed core or self states – that he experienced when enacting the reciprocal role procedures. He could easily recognise and relate incidents with others to the patterns we had identified together (he had typed out a list of behaviour sequences when we were building the diagram together), and began to see himself as behaving a little differently at times. In his visits to his parents he felt more anger with his father and challenged him to make some small changes in his life – to no avail, and then saw how this was a frustration as much with himself. He began too to play less the role of the rescuer or confidante in his family.

He had taken time out from being fully employed and began to apply for jobs again in the middle of the therapy. This created situations in which he faced both exposure and rejection, and in which he needed to evaluate and present himself, and choose what kind of work he wanted to do – and explore aspects of his identity and choose which examples of his work experiences reflected it in different ways, his values, beliefs, interests, knowledge and abilities. It also gave him an experience of not being selected, tolerating rejection and anxiety – and then a few months later being offered a job after another interview,.

Two or three times we both noticed how I could be drawn into being frustrated with him and express a critical attitude for a moment that could be taken as denigrating. We discussed what drew me into it (his way of presenting himself to me) and how this reflected his attitude to himself at such times. He began to know from experience that he could handle his “anticipatory anxiety”. Through some “focusing”, using the sensing, acknowledging and understanding of the some of these emotions (especially feeling out of control and anxious), he could both experience them and see them as part of himself and not the whole of himself, both being in it and externalising it as an “event” as he put it.

But the bleak despair state persists still, even while he may be less self-denigrating. We explored this and he recognised how this state seems more real, and anything else a denial; and he remembered his father saying “managing despair is easier than managing unfulfilled hope”. It is hard for him to access that part of himself that can stand a little outside this state. The recognition of this and the naming of it as his “internal saboteur” can help him in this. But by the end of therapy, though he recognised “his father’s voice” as it were, he still had not had enough experience of himself handling this state differently.

This had turned from what I expected to be a 20 session CAT to a 40 session one, partly as so much was going on with the prolonged job application; but also as we still had not reached far enough with the bleak state. I gave the grid out again about five sessions before the end to give time to discuss and review it, and to work on any issues that it brought up. After he handed it back to me he said he thought there had been some change.

The graph of the second grid is shown in Figure 3, and the construct distances in table 3. One key change is that his attitude to himself has changed; it is less denigrating and unforgiving and more caring and respecting. The other is that he is less dependent and submissive towards others (except his mother and father).

Table 3 Angular Distances between Self-to-Other Constructs (1st & 2nd Grid) (If outside one SD, highlighted) Figures for the 1st Grid are in brackets

	Gets Cross With 7	Gives In To 9	Controls 4	Is Dependent On 6
Looks After 1	(96.4) 102.9	(106.8) 79.9	(60.0) 63.4	(110.7) 79.5
Is Dependent On 6	(80.9) 52.2	(52.2) 23.0	(110.7) 35.3
Controls 4	(90.0) 60.0	(106.8) 38.3
Gives In To 9	(49.8) 50.4

We were hoping that distances between looking after and depending on, and giving in to, should decrease. This was the case; they are now both within the normal range, showing less of an either/or dilemma. The distance between control and depend should decrease. This has substantially, to the extent that they are now abnormally close, and linked more with giving in to. The likely explanation of this is that Steve on reflecting on the first grid saw how indirectly controlling his mother was through her anxiously protecting. The meaning of control had changed. The distance between give in to and get cross with should increase. But instead this has remained the same. All this indicates that there are still the fears of being dependent on others. But there is less of a tendency for this to happen, as the graph shows less submissive dependency on others, lesshiding and anxious protecting, less taking on of his mother’s role towards others – especially old friends.

This second grid is extremely useful as it highlights where change is occurring and where it is not, and enables us to explore why, before the therapy ends. Issues of submission, control and dependency remain, though they are mainly around relationships with his mother, father and brother; and he now sees the relationship between his mother and father as more collusive in this respect (shorter dyad line) while that between him and his father is less so, and he is less denigrating and more caring towards him.

Other factors to look for include the amount of the difference or variance being accounted for by the first two components; the tighter the construing the more just two components account for most of the variance, the looser and more complex the construing the more three or more components are needed to account for the variance. For Steve the construing had become tighter, with an increase of the variance accounted for by component one – especially the constructs dependent on, blaming and getting cross with. This suggests that this component is more salient.

Looking more closely at the proportion of the variance or difference between the elements accounted for by specific constructs can indicate which constructs or descriptors are most salient: if defensiveness was reduced we would expect control and submission to become less salient and looking after more. In the second grid controlling and giving in to are actually more salient; but denigrating less. This reinforces the picture of dependency, submission and control becoming at his stage more critical as issues.

Conclusion

For me there is no doubt that the dyad grid has been a very useful tool to use. I have only tried it out with some of my patients, those for whom I think it would be most interesting. But I have yet to see for whom it would not be useful or appropriate. In clinical practice I found that it:

• supports the process of formulating the diagram and the description of reciprocal roles, cross-validates, or points to parts missing or not being emphasised enough.

• shows the patterns that run across relationships, the reciprocal role procedures, and how relationships differ in their quality.

• indicates where there can be collusion or conflicts in relationships

• points to key dilemmas in relationships

• shows how the relationship with self compares with relationships with others, and how the internalisation of relationship patterns with significant others in childhood has influenced both.

• clarifies the desired changes and the focus of the therapy

• can be understood quite easily by the patient or client

• shows where change is and is not happening, opening up an exploration of why and how (if not given too near the end of therapy).

For research it clearly can help in evaluating results. More importantly, individual predictions of desired change at the start of therapy can be assessed by post therapy testing. Such measures (which can be combined with nomothetic ones as in Brockman et al 87) can allow a number of individual cases to be combined in one study (n=1xn). It can also be used to check diagram accuracy as part of training or as a component of process research, and no doubt there are many other applications. We need to update the normative data however.

I would be interested to hear from others who would like to explore using the grid (john.bristow1@ btopenworld.com). I would support those who want to learn to use the software themselves; it is simple once you know your way around the options presented, which are listed in a straightforward format now. In a user network we could share experiences in using the dyad grid, collect data (including lists of other role descriptors used) and discuss issues such as the effect of the relationships or dyads selected etc. I would also like to see how the dyad grid plays its part in different journeys of change. I am interested too in exploring the use of the dyad grid in addressing issues in work settings, say within the CAT in Organisations interest group.

Other grids (self-state or sessional) are also valuable tools. The dyad grid however, as it focuses on relationships with self and others, and their connection, is particularly relevant to a therapy that sees identity as formed, defined, maintained, changed and transformed through relationships with others, self and the world as far it is known.

References

Brockman, B., Poynton, A. , Ryle, A. and Watson, J.P. (1987) Effectiveness of time-limited therapy carried out be trainees: comparison of two methods British Journal of Psychiatry 151 602-610

Fay Fransella and Peggy Dalton (2000) Personal Construct Counselling in Action London: Sage

Ryle, A. (1982) Psychotherapy: Cognitive Integration of Theory and Practice London: Academic Press

Ryle, A. and Lunghi, M.E. (1970) The dyad grid: a modification of repertory grid technique British Journal of Psychiatry 177 323-7

Full Reference

Bristow, J., 2004. The Use of the Dyad Grid in CAT - An Example. Reformulation, Spring, pp.22-30.

Search the Bibliography

Type in your search terms. If you want to search for results that match ALL of your keywords you can list them with commas between them; e.g., "borderline,adolescent", which will bring back results that have BOTH keywords mentioned in the title or author data.

Related Articles

The Special Needs Project (CAT For Borderline Patients)
Ryle, A., 1995. The Special Needs Project (CAT For Borderline Patients). Reformulation, ACAT News Winter, p.x.

Pragmatism: from Psychoanalysis to CAT
Professor Michael Jacobs, 2018. Pragmatism: from Psychoanalysis to CAT. Reformulation, Summer 2018, p.27.

History and Use of the SDR
Ryle, A., 2003. History and Use of the SDR. Reformulation, Autumn, pp.18-21.

Update on CAT Publications
Ryle, A., 2004. Update on CAT Publications. Reformulation, Summer, pp.31-32.

Book Review of: Beatrice Beebe and Frank Lachmann (2002). Infant Research and Adult Treatment: Co-constructing Interactions. Published London: Analytic Press.
Lloyd, J., 2009. Book Review of: Beatrice Beebe and Frank Lachmann (2002). Infant Research and Adult Treatment: Co-constructing Interactions. Published London: Analytic Press.. Reformulation, Summer, pp.34-35.

Other Articles in the Same Issue

A Cognitive Analytic Multicomponent Psychotherapy Program, for the Treatment of Severe Personality Disorders in an Intensive Outpatient Unit.
Mirapeix, C., Landin, S. and Alvarez, V., 2004. A Cognitive Analytic Multicomponent Psychotherapy Program, for the Treatment of Severe Personality Disorders in an Intensive Outpatient Unit.. Reformulation, Spring, pp.10-13.

Book Review: Managing Intense Emotions and Overcoming Self Destructive Habits: Lorraine Bell
Hobson, J., 2004. Book Review: Managing Intense Emotions and Overcoming Self Destructive Habits: Lorraine Bell. Reformulation, Spring, p.32.

Continuing Professional Development
Buckley, M., 2004. Continuing Professional Development. Reformulation, Spring, p.2.

Mirror, Voice and Reciprocal Role
Elia, I., 2004. Mirror, Voice and Reciprocal Role. Reformulation, Spring, pp.6-8.

Naming or Shaming?
Nuttall, S. and Scott Stewart, M., 2004. Naming or Shaming?. Reformulation, Spring, p.3.

The Big Issue - Report from UKCP
Knight, M., 2004. The Big Issue - Report from UKCP. Reformulation, Spring, p.31.

The Use of the Dyad Grid in CAT - An Example
Bristow, J., 2004. The Use of the Dyad Grid in CAT - An Example. Reformulation, Spring, pp.22-30.

Untying the knots: relational states of mind in Cognitive Analytic Therapy?
Potter, S., 2004. Untying the knots: relational states of mind in Cognitive Analytic Therapy?. Reformulation, Spring, pp.14-21.