ADVERTISEMENTS:
Sociometry is concerned with charting out the attractions and repulsions among the members of a group, among groups (miniature social systems) or subgroups or between the subgroup and individuals. Sociometry involves a set of operations that depart fundamentally from the method employed by Emory Boradgus for the measurement of social distance.
Helen Jennings, one of the pioneer in the field of sociometric studies, described sociometry as a device for a graphic and straight-forward portrayal of the total configuration of relations among the members of a group at some given point in time. Such a picture affords at a glance, the main lines of communications and the whole kaleidoscope of attractions and repulsions among members of the group.
For Franz, “Sociometry is a method used for discovery and manipulation of social configuration by measuring the attractions and repulsions among individuals in a group.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The basic technique employed in sociometry is the sociometric test; sociometric techniques have a reference to a cluster of devices, sociometric test included, which consist in having each member in the group with whom he/she would like to or would not like to engage in some activity that is relevant to the life of the group.
Depending on the character of the group, the members may be asked to indicate whom (from among the other members of the group) he/she would like to be associated or not like to be associated with, in play, studies, problem-solving, dinner, lending and borrowing, etc.
What type of interactions among members become the focus of the researcher’s attention depends, besides his objectives, on the nature and functions of the group. Generally, sociometric studies employ observation, questionnaires and interview schedules.
Sometimes, examination of records may also be employed to secure the relevant information. But sociometry should more properly be considered a method of analysis rather than simply a method of data-collection.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The researcher needs to conduct observation of the behaviour of members if he wants to know the actual happenings in the group. During such an observation, the researcher concentrates on how the members behave, how they interact with one another, what the nature of their relationship is, who initiates interaction (orientation role) and who plays the object-role, etc.
Suppose, we conduct an observation aimed at ascertaining the pattern the students of a class in a public school exhibit in respect of exchanging the New Year Greetings.
We may find that one student may be taken to be the most popular member of the class as much as he receives maximum number of greetings; a sociometric ‘star,’ to use the language of sociometry. We may also find that a few students do not receive any greeting cards.
In sociometric terminology, these are the ‘isolates.’ We may further find that there has been among students, incidence of mutual exchange of greeting cards, e.g., A sends to B and B sends to A. This is known as the ‘mutual choice.’ In the course of our observations, we may come across some cliques, i.e., sub-groups of students, within each of which mutual exchange of greetings has taken place.
The sociometric questionnaires and interviews are employed in securing information from each persons about the other members of the group with whom they would like to or would not like to engage in a particular type of interaction, as also, their thoughts about this interaction.
Questions included in the sociometric questionnaire/schedule are directed toward seeking information from each person in the group as to which other members of the group he would like or not like as his playmate, roommate, colleague, etc.
Sometimes, the person is asked to name all the persons in the group whom he would like to choose or reject; that is, there is no restriction on the respondent to confine his choice or rejections to the first three or four persons in order of preference. But if the group is numerically large, the individual respondent is usually asked to indicate his choices or rejections to the first few persons in order of preference.
Moreno himself insisted on soliciting unrestricted number of choice or rejections, i.e., he recommends that the respondents should be allowed to indicate the total range of choice or rejections without any limitations.
There is, of course, no denying that such a freedom allowed to the individual members of the group would go a long way in affording a sensitive and objective portrait of the interpersonal relations in the group.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
But, practical considerations often warrant a restriction on the individual respondent to indicate his choice or rejections only up to a certain numerical limit (three or four). If the group subjected to sociometric analysis is a large one, such a restriction largely becomes necessary.
Suppose, we want to administer a sociometric test in a class of students. We may ask each student of the class to indicate which three (or more) students he would like to invite for a birthday party at his place and what his order of preference would be among those he would like to invite.
We may also ask each student to indicate which three (or more) students he would not like to invite to his birthday party and what would be his order in rejection.
If the respondents believe that their choices or rejections would be used as a basis for the actual restructuring of the group or for effecting subsequent arrangements or rearrangements, there is a greater likelihood of their responding to the sociometric questions in all sincerity.
At least, this is the usual and reasonable assumption. So in the sociometric studies, the researcher normally prefaces his questioning with the assurance to the respondents that their choices in respect of play, living arrangements and studies, etc., will be taken into active account while effecting modifications in prevailing conditions or in making subsequent arrangements.
Despite the fact the Moreno and associates had employed the sociometric method with extreme care and their insistence was on the use of this method only under certain conditions, the sociometric method has been used quite extensively and quite often without much caution.
The popularity of this method may be attributed to the facility and graphic character of the ‘socio-gram’ which may be aptly described as a diagrammatic means of presenting in essential basics the outline of inter-personal relations among the members of a group and the sentiments underlying these relationships. Sociometric data can also be summarized by means of N x N table. Such a tabulation is basic to matrix analyses.
Let us try to understand the N x N tabulation with the help of an example. Suppose we asked each one of the fifteen students who comprise a class, whom (among the other fourteen) they would like to invite for a birthday party. Suppose also, that we asked each student to in order of his/her preference. We can present these data, in a N x N table (since group has fifteen students, the table will be a 15 x 15 table).
The digits 1, 2, 3 shown in the various cells of the table below indicate the preferences. 1 represents the first preference choice. As shown in the table below, A has given first preference to B as an invitee to the birthday party.
Similarly, the digits 2 and 3 in the table indicate respectively the second and third preferences. As can be seen in the table, C has given second preference to A and third preference to E. Similarly, D has given first preference to A, second to C and third to E. Thus, on the whole, the sociometric matrix, illustrated above, portrays in a quite intelligible manner the interpersonal relations among the students of a class.
The very same data may be presented in the form of a socio-gram.
Socio-gram: Showing Patterns of Choice at the Birthday Party:
Examining the socio-gram presented above, we find that A is the most frequently chosen person. He has secured the highest number of choices, i.e., eight. Out of these, three are first preference choices, four second preference and one third preference.
In the language of sociometry we may designate A as the ‘star’, e.g., he is the most popular student in the group. In terms of the total number of choices, D and E (who have secured 7 choices each, irrespective of preferences) come next. But preference wise, their standing is not comparable to A, since D has only 2 first preferences whereas E has only 1.
It is worthy of note that C, G and B have secured respectively a total of 5, 5 and 4 choices but each of them has received 3 first preferences. B has secured first preference choice from A who is the ‘star’ (as such this first preference choice, qualitatively speaking, amounts to more than any other first preference choice). Such qualitative differences are important aspects of sociometric analysis.
In the socio-gram, we find that 0 has not been chosen by a single student and is thus an isolate in sociometric parlance. Some instances of mutual choices also appear in the sociogram, e.g., A has chosen B and B has reciprocated A’s sentiment.
Similarly, K and N have given third preference choices to each other. The sociogram also presents mutual choices that are qualitatively unequal, e.g., D has indicated his first preference choice for A but A has given a second preference choice to D.
If we had a group considerably larger than the one represented by the sociogram, the corresponding figure might have shown the existence of sub-groups or cliques within the larger group. The sociogram above, represents the pattern of choices with respect to invitation to a birthday party.
We could have also asked the students of the class questions with a view to knowing the pattern of choices/rejections in regard to other criteria. For example, “whom would you choose as your playmate?” or “with whom would you like to share your lunch?” etc., are some of the questions that could be asked.
The sociometric questions that the situations or events about which questions are asked must be the ones the members of the group are familiar with and that the questions should appear realistic in the context of the group.
That is, the events or situations should not appear very outlandish or far-fetched to the respondents and should meaningfully fit into the cognitive structure of respondents. Lastly, it is very desirable to maintain a fair measure of consistency between the sociometric structure we are interested in and the criteria in respect of which we ask respondents to indicate their acceptance or rejection.
The questionnaires and interviews are the principal instruments involved in the administration of sociometric tests. These are easy to administer and can be reformulated to suit situations of differing kinds.
Students engaged in testing the reliability of sociometric data have found that despite a considerable variation in the individual’s specific choices and the patterns of inter-personal relations within the group, the scores/ indexes based on the sociometric data are fairly stable.
Sociometric methods have been used with advantage in the studies of leadership, friendship pattern, group structures, social adjustments, minority prejudices, morale, public opinion, etc. In the field of psychiatry too (especially, group therapy) the use of sociometry has proved very fruitful.
Among the pioneering studies of leadership using the sociometric technique, the one conducted by Helen Jennings on girl students deserves special mention. Jennings calculated the choice-scores for each student on the basis of the choices or rejections received by each of them.
This study revealed that there was a close correspondence between the leadership status of the students in the community and the choice-scores received by them in the study.
One of the most significant findings of Jennings’ study has been that leadership does not depend on any definite constellation of traits or personality characteristics; it depends rather on the behavioural contributions made by the person in reference to other members of the group.
Festinger, Schachter and Back have employed the sociometric technique in their study of the effects of residential patterning on friendship patterns. The study brought to light the fact that while factors such as age, interests, socio-economic status, etc., are important in the formation of friendly relations, ecological factors have a significant contribution to make in the initial formation and reinforcement of friendship relations.
Crisswell employed the sociometric technique in her study of ethnic group prejudices. She has been able to show clearly that racial prejudices among children develop only after a certain age.
Roethlisberger and Diskson in their well-known study entitled ‘Management and the Worker’ have described by means of sociometric diagrams, the interpersonal relationship among workers in the ‘Bank wiring room,’ an experimental group culled out of the larger complex the ‘Hawthorne Electrical Works.’
Many a time, it is not feasible to study the interpersonal relations in the context of some specific concrete situation. At such times the individuals are asked to participate in an imaginary play situation or socio-drama with a view to assessing the nature of their attitudes. The socio-drama has diagnostic as well as therapeutic implications for the participants.
The variables that sociometric measure represent are typically social and as such, deal with the basic data the sociologists in the main, are primarily interested in individuals in interaction within a miniature social system are effectively represented, affording thus, an insight into the social environment as perceived by the subject. Knowledge of the “subjective frame of reference” aids understanding of the situation.
Sociologists, social psychologists and, to a lesser extent, social anthropologists and psychiatrists have employed sociometric measures with advantage. Moreno’s insistence that sociometric finding should be utilized for restructuring the situation under study has led to use of these measures being employed in the fields of education, industry, military, mental health, and broadly, in social engineering.
The interdisciplinary appropriateness of the sociometric devices makes out a strong case for their relevance to a field where there is interest in cross-disciplinary integration. Furthermore, these are devices an independent researcher can use without large-scale resources. Sociometric findings have direct implications for the situation under study.
This is an additional merit of these techniques in terms of action-research. Nor is it all; these techniques while generating a high degree of interest and co-operation in the subjects, also provide acceptance indices and operative definition for a number of empirical concepts.
Small wonder, the social, behavioural sciences have been impressed by sociometric devices as evidenced from the frequent employment of these techniques in various areas of their scientific concern.
Let us now discuss some of the cautions and limitations a research employing sociometric techniques ought to be familiar with. These cautions in some cases relate to (a) the manner of employing these techniques; in others, they relate to (b) shortcoming inherent in the very nature of sociometric techniques.
The sociometric measures provide only one of the multiple means of viewing interpersonal relations. More often than not, additional evidence gathered through other means of providing information about the physical, social, cultural and psychological aspects of the situation is a prerequisite to an interpretative understanding of the phenomena, the sociometric techniques are conventionally applied to.
Moreno rightly recommends the use of spontaneity tests and interviews to yield clues to the determinates of sociometric responses. For example, a person indicating his choice for a member of his own ethnic group may have done so owing to his personal acquaintance with the member chosen; not so much for reasons of ethnicity.
Suppose, it was seen in the course of a sociometric study of children belonging to different socio-economic classes that the middle class children are generally inclined to choose children of their stratum as playmates.
What would this finding mean? If we found that the (chosen and the choosers) middle class children live in the same locality and as such are acquainted with one another, this would mean that residential factor is a significant one in determining inter-personal choices.
Children belonging to different socio-economic groups usually live in different localities, hence the possibility of contacts between children of different strata is bound to be less. Consequently, the middle class children are understandably not inclined to choose children of other groups as their playmates.
Hence, any conclusion that the act of middle class children in not choosing children of other socio-economic or cultural groups is a reflection of prejudice. It would not be a reflection of reality.
This does not however, mean that the element of prejudice as a historical fact is not involved in patterning the choices of children anywhere. For instance, in fact the segregation of people of different creeds, castes and racial stocks, i.e., their living in separate communities/localities may in part, be attributed to prejudice.
Sociometric techniques constitute an integral part of the efforts of Moreno and associates at propounding a mature behavioural theory of inter-personal relations. The sociometric techniques acquire their distinctive character from this theory. But a few researchers may be tempted to misuse these techniques. John Madge has sounded an explicit caution bearing upon this possibility.
The tendency to ignore other kinds of data and to ascribe a special empirical status to sciometric data may retard motivation to introduce measure necessary for a fruitful and wider application of sociometry. Lindzey and Borgatta contend that there has been very little in the way of systematic, theoretically derived research aimed at exploring the kinds of conditions and variables related to sociometic response.
The relative lack of systematic and cumulative investigations is rooted in the tendency to rely solely upon the sociometic measures: Thus far, sociometric studies have been confined mostly to educational and institutional groups, while other pertinent groups have not been investigated sociometrically.
Multivariate conception of the nature of inter-personal relation may hopefully lead to research that will be of basic importance to the understanding of group process. Besides, such systematic research would promote greater understanding of the sociometric instruments.
Lack of concern for linking of the formulations to empirical data (characteristic of Moreno) has had the effect probably of deterring a more cautious and persistent approach to relations between theory and sociometric data. Leeman has presented base-line mathematical model to represent sociometric choice which may lead to a more systematic approach to sociometric data.
Again, the sociometric investigators have paid scant attention to the criterion of sociometric questions. The importance of selecting an appropriate criterion for sociometric analyses has been emphasized time and again. Relevant here is the distinction between ‘essential’ and ‘auxiliary’ criteria (proposed by Moreno), the essential criteria being those that refer to central activity under study.
Crisswell has distinguished between ‘one-way’ and ‘two-way’ sociometric questions while Jennings suggests a distinction between ‘Psyche’ and ‘Socio’ group. These distinctions need to be stressed since a failure to select the criterion carefully does affect the quality of data adversely and such data may not lend themselves to analysis of any consequence.
The question of what the choices under various criteria mean, as also, of the kinds of variable that can best be measured through the use of certain criteria, are questions that rightly deserve careful consideration and yet have often been neglected.
One of the objections raised in this connection is that the investigator employing sociometry does not often know what a choice means for the subject. This objection refers to the questions of relevance of various criteria for providing data in regard to particular dimensions.
The demand that the investigator should “know” what a response actually means to every subject is not very proper; the important things, however, is the extent to which an order imposed upon subjects on the basis of response can be related to pertinent independent measures.
Despite the phenomenal advances made in the analysis of sociometic data in the last few decades, characteristic flaws still persist, the most serious of these being the “tendency to capitalize illegitimately upon chance-variation” and to treat such variations as socially significant.
‘Near sociometric’ and ‘quasi-sociometric’ studies which are ramifications of the ‘pure’ sociometric studies, have also been conducted quite fruitfully in situations where strict conformity to the requirements of ‘pure’ sociometric studies is beset with practical problems.
Sociometric self-rating, group participation scale, multi-relational sociometric survey and ‘Guess who techniques’ etc. are some of the methodological devices, quite similar to the sociometric tests.