社会测量法.doc

社会测量法
　　就是向团体中的每个成员提出针对某项活动的问题，让他们选择自己喜欢或不喜欢的团体成员，然后，根据选择结果用数字和图来表示团体人际关系的方法。
　　社会测量法
　　①由心理学家莫里诺1934年提出。
　　②社会测量法：一种测量团体（特别是小团体）内成员之间人际关系和人际相互作用模式的方法。
　　③社会测量法的基本假设是团体内部存在不同程度的相互作用，使得各个成员在不同程度的积极与消极人际情感的基础上形成了一种非正式组织，这种相互偏爱和疏远的关系会对团体的士气和效率产生显著的影响。

莫里诺的社会测量法
出自 MBA智库百科(
莫里诺的社会测量法（Moreno’s Sociomery Method）
目录
[隐藏]
· 1 社会测量法概述
· 2 社会测量法的原理与假设
· 3 社会测量法的特点
· 4 社会测量法的实施过程
· 5 社会测量法的结果分析
· 6 社会测量法的应用
· 7 对社会测量法的评价
[编辑]
社会测量法概述
　　社会测量法是心理学家莫里诺（J．L. Moreno）于1934年提出的一种研究方法。它主要用于研究团体内（特别是小团体）成员之间人际关系和人际相互作用的模式，即所谓社会结构，通过社会测量，人们可以了解人的人际知觉方式、团体凝聚力等团体特征。在进行社会测量时，人们假设：在所有团体里都存在一定程度的相互作用，这种相互作用使得各团体内成员在不同程度的积极与消极人际情感的基础上形成一种非正式的组织；这种相互偏爱或疏远的关系会显著地影响团体的士气和效率。
　　社会测量法要求团体成员根据研究者所提供的某种标准，选择一位或多位同伴。目前，社会测量的选择已包含相当广的内容，它已不只是指“人”的选择，还可以选择信息交流渠道或组织层次，还可以要求被测人对数种选择排出等级。
[编辑]
社会测量法的原理与假设
　　莫里诺认为，在每一个群体中，成员与成员之间由于存在着交往和相互作用的关系，所以，他们的心理上必然会产生相互影响，而这种相互影响也一定会反映在他们彼此之间的行为上。那么，如果考察成员之间在特定情境下的相互选择行为或行为意向，就应该能够了解成员之间的心理联系状况。
　　比如，成员相互之间进行肯定选择，那就意味着他们之间在心理上是相互接纳的关系，如果他们之间进行否定的选择，那就说明他们之间在心理上是相互排斥的关系。所以，可以假设，在一个群体中，成员在不同评价意义上进行肯定或否定选择的时候，就反映出了这些成员之间在该评价意义方面的人际关系状况。
　　因此，只要测定成员在群体中对其他人的选择和他自己被选择的情况，就可以了解成员与他人的关系状况，也可以了解该成员在群体中的地位以及整个群体的结构状况。
[编辑]
社会测量法的特点
　　社会测量法具有以下几个显著特点。
　　（1）涉及社会性的变量。它主要研究人际关系及人际结构特征，强调人与人之间的相互作用。
　　（2）社会测量是对人的某种评价，因此，它容易引起被测人较强的兴趣与动机。
　　（3）测量结果特别适合于小团体研究。在研究团体效率和凝聚力方面等具有很强的应用性。
[编辑]
社会测量法的实施过程
　　（一）测量标准的选择
　　1．在确定标准时，需要考虑标准的性质、数目以及可以选择的数目。标准的多少根据研究的要求而定，一般情况下不宜太多。因为太多、太严的标准将会给被试的选择带来困难，如找不到可选的对象。
　　2．如果按标准的重要性，可以将它们分成强标准和弱标准。
　　强标准是指对于工作或生活有重要意义和长期影响的标准，例如一起工作、一起学习等；弱标准往往是临时和短期的活动或任务，比如，让受测人选择与谁在一起参加某次活动。
　　3．选择标准时，应注意使标准尽可能具体，让受测者充分了解标准的内容，如说明一起参加什么工作或活动，避免由于理解不同而导致的偏差。
　　4．标准可以用积极方式，也可以用消极方式提出。积极方式如：“你喜欢与谁一起讨论工作计划?”消极方式如：“你不希望与谁一起参加某一活动?”消极方式容易引起受测者的焦虑和不安，因而要谨慎使用。
　　5．每次测量一般使用一个标准；只有在有特殊需要时，才用多个标准和更多选择。
　　二）实施过程
　　有明确的指导语，指出测量目的；
　　让受测者在自愿基础上参加测量，并向他们说明，将不公开测量结果，使他们无拘束地参加测量，避免影响正常团体气氛和成员之间关系；
　　让受试者在限定范围内选择适当对象。同时，根据研究目的和任务，向被测人说明测量意义，熟悉他们的情况，建立融洽的合作关系，使测量顺利进行。
　　根据要求，社会测量常用以下几种方式。
　　（1）等级排列法。将团体其他成员按喜爱程度排出等级顺序；然后，对等级顺序进行加权记分。例如，给“最好”的同伴记3分，给“第二好”的同伴记2分，给“第三好”的人记1分。再以这些分数乘以被选次数，得出每个人的等级分数。
　　（2）靶式社会图。这种方式以靶图方式标出被选频次，靶心为频次最高的人，越向外周，被人选择的次数越少。
　　（3）“猜测”技术。这种方法给受测人呈现一些有关积极或消极特征的简短描述，让他们列出与这一系列描述相匹配的人，然后根据这些选择做出分析。
[编辑]
社会测量法的结果分析
　　例如，要求学生被试选择两个自己最愿意一起学习的同学，对选择结果可以用以下几种方式进行分析。
　　 （一）矩阵分析
　　将成员以某些代号表示。见表1。横行（J）表示被选者，总列（I）表示选择者，“1”表示选择，“0”表示不选择，自己不选择自己。最后，可以计算出团体中每个成员被选的次数。

　　这种分析方法主要适用于小团体，当团体增大时，很难从数目差异中纵观整个人际关系。在这种情况下，社会测量图更有效果。

　　表1　莫雷诺的社会测量法矩阵分析
　　 （二）图解分析
　　上例结果也可以用图解分析表示。见图1。

　　图1 莫雷诺的社会测量法图解分析
　　在图1中，成员5处于选择中心；1、2、5相互选择（双向箭头表示），他们在团体内很可能是一个非正式小团体；5位于中心，被选次数最多，而3和4则处于边缘。当然，用图解分析法时，团体也不宜过大，一般应少于20人，否则，结果将难以解释。
　　不—同研究者可以对相同数据做出不同的图解布局，因此没有矩阵分析的结果可比性高。
　　（三）指数分析
　　指数分析以一个综合指数表示团体的社会结构关系，它能够更精确地表示团体不同特性。指数分析的计算公式如下：
　　个人社会测量指数＝个人被选次数/(n-1)
　　式中n为团体成员人数，分母用n一l，是因为每个人不能自己选自己。
　　运用这一公式，可以估算出团体中每一成员的社会测量指数，了解每个人在团体结构中所处的位置。在矩阵分析中，成员①和⑤的指数分别为：
　　成员5的测量指数= 4/(5-1) =1.00
　　成员1的测量指数= 2/(5-1) =0.50
　　成员之间相互选择，表明了团体内聚力的程度，因此，可以运用团体社会测量指数作为整个团体的内聚力指标，计算公式如下：
　　团体社会测量指数= 相互选择数目 /所有可能的互相选择总数
　　其中分母“所有可能的互相选择总数”即从n个成员中选取两个的所有可能的次数。
[编辑]
社会测量法的应用
　　社会测量法主要可以了解群体内部三个方面的问题：即了解群体中最受欢迎的人，群体中有无非正式小群体，了解群体内部的人际关系整体状况。
　　这种方法，可以把群体成员心理上的结合加以数量化，而且揭示出的群体内的人际关系状况是不被当事人所觉察的，比如成员之间的好感或情绪方面的联系等。
　　另外，运用这种方法了解一个群体内的人际关系状况相对比较节省时间因而，社会测量法一经问世，就受到许多心理学家、社会学家的广泛注意，被广泛运用于工厂、机关、学校等团体的各个方面的人际关系测查和人员选拔、人事推荐等。大量的研究者还为社会测量法的发展作了很多工作，提出了一系列测量方法的改进措施，如现在被广泛运用于儿童群体人际关系测量的"同伴提名法"，用于测查群体成员选择动机和被成员所重视的人员范围的“参照测量法”和“关系测量法”等。
[编辑]
对社会测量法的评价
　　社会测量法是一种简单、经济和自然的研究方法，可用于各种团体方面的研究。它比较灵活，已被广泛应用于教育、儿童、管理、人事、消费等许多领域。一般情况下，在使用强标准进行社会测量时，其结果比弱标准的测量结果稳定；随着团体成员年龄增长，测量的稳定性提高；当保密程度较高并且不记名时，测量可靠性比较高。
　　社会测量法的局限性最为突出的是：选择模式并不能说明选择的理由与原因，选择数据只表明表面性的关系，不能解释其中的因果关系。选择同样的人，可能出于十分不同的考虑，选择某成员，并不一定表示偏爱或者吸引。因为人际间的相互作用关系非常复杂，它还受到许多其他因素的影响，如群体压力、个人的人格特征等等。

Dr. J. L. Moreno
On this page:
Biblography
Moreno and Psybernet
Moreno Links
Mailing Lists

Dr. Jacob Levy Moreno is the originator of:
· psychodrama
· sociodrama
· role training
· sociometry
· group psychotherapy
Moreno was a young man at the time Freud was already older, both are from Vienna. Moreno turned around most of Freud's ideas. Rather than a couch he had a stage. Where the "doctor" was passive in Freud, with Moreno he is active. Moreno moved to America in 1925 where he was influential in the social sciences and developed Psychodrama.
It is one of the phenomena associated with Dr. Moreno that he is somewhat invisible in the literature. This may be because of the style of his work and the fact that he self published. A more profound reason might be that he pioneered a new way of learning and knowing, he has an approach to method that transcends the science / art split in the people related disciplines.
Top
Moreno and Psybernet
His work is relevant to the relationships on the Internet. We can learn from the tradition of psychodrama in the development of online psychological work. His notions of sociometry, the links between people are an obvious example. In a post to the mailing list Psyber-L I compared an Internet mailing list with a stage. It shows how Moreno can be an inspiration here, though the medium is very different.
The principal connection between Dr. Moreno's methods and Psybernet is that we aim to use experiential learning in all the Psybernet endeavours.
Top
Dr. J.L.Moreno Bibliography
Very incomplete, it would be a worthwhile project to have the full bibliography in digital form.
· Marineau, Rene F.
Jacob Levy Moreno 1889 - 1974 Father of psychodrama, sociometry, and group psychotherapy. Routlidge 1989 London & New York.
· Fox, Jonathan (Ed.) 1987
The Essential Moreno. Springler New York.
· Psychodrama. Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Beacon House, New York.
· Sociometry, Experimental Method and the Science of Society. An Approach to a New Political Orientation. Beacon House, Inc. Beacon New York. 1951
This is the work where I become inspired by his methodology. wl
· "Psychodramatic Production Techniques", Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama Sociometry 4 (1952) Quoted in Fox 1987.
· Who Shall Survive? Foundations of Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy and Sociodrama. Beacon House, Inc. Beacon New York. 1953
· Brigitte MARSCHALL: "Ich bin der Mythe": Von der Stegreifbuehne zum Psychodrama Jakob Levy Morenos. Wien, Koeln, Graz: Boehlau, 1988.
Brigitte wrote to me: 
 "I am working on an edition of Moreno's early Viennese publications.
Every contact in this regard would be very welcome!
Prof. Brigitte Marschall, Univ. of Vienna, Austrilia "
Top
Links
· Rob Brodie's Pychodrama Page A wealth of links here.
Top

Internet Mailing Lists & MOO
· Psychodrama
Subscribe Psychodrama name name
[e-mail]
The welcome file
· Sociodrama Welcome file with Joining instructions.
· GRASSROOTS MOO
rdz.stjohns.edu 8888
· GROUPTALK
Welcome file with majordomo address
Psychodramatists from around the world meet here.
Top

This page is an independent venture, as an addition to my Psybernet site. I would be pleased to cooperate with groups and individuals in the development of Dr. Moreno's work on the Internet. Information about the application of his work to the electronic media would be appreciated.
[e-mail]

SOCIOMETRY
Sociometry, by definition, measures the “socius”—the
interpersonal connection between two people (Moreno
1951). The founder of sociometry, Jacob L. Moreno
(1889–1974), conceived three levels of sociometry
(Moreno [1953] 1993), applying the term sociometry to
each (tending to cause confusion). These levels are:
theoretical system (alternately termed sociatry)—
including role, social atom,
spontaneity/encounter, psychodrama/enactment,
and sociometry theories;
subtheory of that system; and
assessment method and intervention (Hale 1981;
Remer 2006).
Historically sociometry was a central influence in
sociology and related areas, even producing several dedicated
journals. Over time, though, its influence has
diminished to such a point that, at most, one of its central
constructs—the sociogram—gets only passing mention in
assessment texts (e.g., Cohen and Swerdlik 2005;
Cronbach 1970; Gronlund 1971). However, a complete
understanding of sociometry provides tremendously powerful
structures and tools for use not only in small group
interactions but also wherever and whenever interpersonal
dynamics come into play.
Grasping the entire sociometric system is optimal, but
popularly sociometry theory is focused on measuring relationships,
the purview of both social atom theory (longterm
relationships and their development and maintenance
over time) and sociometry (fluctuation of interpersonal
connections over short periods). The sociogram is the representation
of sociometry (see Figure 1).
Beyond the conception of humans as essentially social
beings, sociometry recognizes and uses the fact that all
these connections are perpetually manifest in the social
choices we make—for example, with whom we eat lunch;
whom we marry; whom we sit next to in classes, receptions,
and other meetings; whom we like and do not like
(based on tele, warm-up, role reciprocity). Using both
positive (choose/acceptance/attraction) and negative (notchoose/

rejection/repulsion) choices, the connections
between people and the patterns of connections throughout
groups are made manifest, explored, and influenced
(Remer 1995a, 1995b; Remer and Finger 1995; Remer,
Lima, Richey, et al. 1995).
The key to using sociometry as an assessment and
intervention (like Heisenberg’s principle) most effectively
is understanding Moreno’s full conceptualization. The
misconception is that sociometry stops with the production
of the sociogram from choices expressed related to a
specific criterion (e.g., “With whom would you most and
least want to sit at a wedding reception?”). This level is
what Moreno called “near [‘weak’] sociometry” (my label).
“Strong” sociometry requires two conditions beyond eliciting
choices and depicting them: (1) The choices must be
implemented (e.g., you must sit with whom you have
Sociometry
390 INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2ND EDITION
iess_S 8/17/07 1:04 PM Page 390
chosen), and (2) the reasons for choosing must be made
overt and explored. The last two conditions present many
possibilities and difficulties.
Implementing the choices makes them real in the
sense that the full impact of a choice is experienced (e.g.,
you can say I’ll sit with Aunt Bertha to be nice, but actually
sitting with her may inform you fully why others have
not opted for that seat). So future choices will be influenced.
Arriving at an optimal implementation is challenging
because not everyone can have one of his or her
positives, and some must endure a negative—regardless of
how many selections are allowed (a phenomenon
addressed by the theory).
Examining choice rationales presents other challenges.
People tend to be uncomfortable with the process
because, for example, they believe that feelings may be
hurt or they are confused by their own ambivalences and
lack of awareness of their reasons. Reservations have some
validity but usually not nearly to the degree feared. The
benefit derives from probing projections attendant—
assumptions about the rationales and/or expectations for
the choices. At worst, some perceptions are confirmed; at
best and more often, the rationales do not conform to
suppositions in informative ways (e.g., you are not chosen
by a friend because you see each other frequently and he
or she wants to visit with others, or you are chosen by
someone because you are seen as the only less talkative
person in the group). Negatives are not necessarily “bad,”
nor are positives necessarily “good.” Learning reasons
challenges assumptions and/or provides the basis for
changing behaviors—a not inconsequential therapeutic
value.
The sociograms (Figure 1) and the choices from
which it is constructed (Figure 2) clarify these points and
introduce terminology to illustrate the strengths of
sociometry. The data are real, using the criterion “From
whom would you like feedback?” based on two positive
and two negative choices.
The pattern of choices shows that D is the “star” (that
is, he or she receives the most choices) and F is a “rejectee”
(he or she receives no positive choices and a number of
negative choices); everyone else is a “member” (receiving
some positive and perhaps some negative choices). No
“isolate” (someone receiving no choices) appears. C, D,
Sociometry
Sample Sociograms
COMPLETE
KEY
Positive Choice
Negative Choice
Mutual Choices
Reciprocal
Non-Reciprocal
Female
Male
E
D
A
G
F
E
A
D
B
F C
E
G
NEGATIVE CHOICES
POSITIVE CHOICES
C
G D F
A
B
B
C
INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2ND EDITION 391
iess_S 8/17/07 1:04 PM Page 391
and E form a “subgroup,” having each reciprocally positively
chosen each other. The centrality of D and F to the
group dynamics is more obvious in seeing the positives
and negatives separately, illustrating that energy of the
group is demanded regardless of choice valence—both D
and F have significant impacts.
The criterion implemented dyadically manifests practical
difficulties. Who would be paired with D; who
would be stuck with F? If C and E were paired, satisfying
their desires, what then of D’s desires? The optimal implementation
satisfies the most choices of either valence. The
process makes manifest exactly the dynamics experienced
in all group situations (as anyone planning a wedding
reception can attest). Knowing the reasons behind the
choices and their strength (expanded schema) can help
with optimal assignment. Some rationales indicate that
“violating” a choice is not as detrimental as assumed (e.g.,
A and G reciprocally reject because they do not know each
other).
With the particular criterion used (and its converse,
“To whom would you like to give feedback?”), the implementation
and rationale-sharing fit well together (i.e.,
sharing the rationales is giving feedback). With different
criteria the sociometry will change, perhaps not greatly.
For example, “To whom would you like to speak?” or
“Whom would you like to know better?” could change
the valence of the A-G choices and also demonstrates the
difference between “actionable” criteria and “near”
sociometry ones (e.g., “Whom in the group don’t you
know well?”). Choice of criteria influences the sociometry,
revealing each individual’s worth if done skillfully.
Lest sociometry be thought to be only small-group
focused, Moreno’s work with the U.S. Navy in forming
more efficient and safer squads (Moreno 1951) and with
the Hudson School for Girls, where cottages were formed
and run sociometrically (Moreno [1953] 1993) were both
large-scale sociometry interventions.
Sociometry as an