Autosociometric test

Autosociometry is not an independent diagnostic procedure. It naturally complements and deepens the data of classical sociometry and is carried out simultaneously with it. During this procedure, group members verbalize their ideas about how the group as a whole and its individual members relate to them personally. Thus, the psychologist can assess how correctly each student imagines his place in the team. In social psychology, the ability to adequately assess the attitude of other people towards oneself is called social-reflexive skills. The level of social-reflexive development is an important indicator of personal maturity, emotional well-being of a person. Of course, younger teenagers have this skill to a much lesser extent than schoolchildren aged 12-14, and even more so adults. But still, it is advisable to carry out autosociometry in these educational groups.

The adequacy of ideas about one’s place in the group is a positive sign, even if we are talking about outcasts or isolated ones. Socially reflexive inadequacy is fraught with various problems that a student may have in the process of communication. They may be associated with the demonstration by the child of such behavior that does not meet the expectations of the group and, accordingly, is not encouraged or punished by it. Such a child may expect a different attitude from his peers. Moreover, he reacts equally painfully both to the absence of aggression expected from others in the event of an unreasonable subjective underestimation of his status, and to the lack of benevolence and support in the reassessment of his own role in the team.

Data processing is carried out in two stages.

At the stage of initial analysis, close attention should be paid to all cases of direct or hidden failure. Refusal can be expressed in various ways: the banal omission of questions and (or) their cross out, verbal and written remarks like “I don’t want to answer these questions” or (much more common) “How do I know what’s in their head?” . The student can get off with a joke or write “Everyone”, “Nobody”. Any of these options is informative. Autosociometry is an emotionally painful procedure for any person, but especially for those who know or experience certain difficulties in relationships. All cases of withdrawal, refusal to answer should be considered as a possible symptom of the socio-psychological distress of the individual.

As already mentioned, in the answers of schoolchildren one can often come across phrases like “You need to ask them about this”, “How do I know”, etc. The diagnostic value of such answers depends on the age of the children. For example, in grades 3-4 (the earliest age for conducting sociometry in the proposed version), many psychologically well-off children are unusually interested in the opinions of the people around them. On the contrary, increased attention to one’s status speaks of internal conflicts and emotional and personal problems of the child. In adolescence, such interest is natural and natural. Responses of the above type can most likely be considered as protection, avoidance of traumatic impact.

At the second stage, a quantitative analysis of the data is carried out. It can be carried out using the same sociometric matrix (see the table on p. 14). To do this, autosociometry data must be entered in a vertical column under the name of a particular student. For example, cells with proposed choices should be colored red, and cells with proposed rejections should be colored blue.

By comparing this data with the person’s real choices/rejections, which are also presented in this column, the number of matches can be counted and recorded in the P+ and P- rows (correctly predicted choices and rejections).

Referentometric test Referentometry – the measurement of the value of other persons – exists in various methodological forms. In this case, a variant is used that is meaningfully and in form related to sociometry (the fifth question of the proposed comprehensive test). It is assumed that when choosing people whose answers one would like to know, a person is guided not so much by emotional attractiveness, but by the value significance, for him, of the personality of this person.

Indeed, experience shows that the members of the group who score the most on the fifth question very often do not coincide] with either the “stars” or the high-status ones. Among them may be potential leaders (people who have a real influence on the thoughts and actions of group members), people who are authoritative for the group (they may not be followed, but their opinion is respected, taken into account). Sometimes outcasts fall into the number of referentometric leaders. There are cases when, in critical situations, the class transferred leadership positions to such people. This is an interesting and important material for analysis. However, it should be remembered that a high referentometric position does not necessarily indicate the leadership authority of this person. This is due to the specifics of the procedure itself. It, like all sociometry, is built on a conditional choice in a hypothetical situation. It is possible that in reality the elections would have been distributed quite differently. Such a procedure allows us to speak about emotional and value preferences, but says nothing about the real subordination of the members of the group to any one person who has leadership power. That is why modern social psychology does not use either sociometry or referentometry to identify real leaders and study the leadership structure (we plan to talk about what is used separately).

Referentometry data are also entered into the sociometric matrix. In the horizontal lines, in the form of a conventional sign that is different from those already used in the table (for example, a tick), information is entered about who and, possibly, in what order a particular child named when answering a question. As a result of counting the number of points scored (each choice is one point or a ranked system), the last line is filled in – the sum of the points scored (P +).

So, as a result of data processing on all five questions, we have a complex table (sociomatrix) with an abundance of information, a synthesized sociogram, and the results of a primary analysis. The next crucial step is a qualitative, meaningful analysis of the available material.

Referentometry is a technique that allows you to find out the degree of significance of each member of the group for his comrades in the community, to identify, on the one hand, those whose opinion in a given community is oriented by the majority of its members, and on the other hand, those whose position on a particular issue is practically everyone is indifferent. Thus, the referentometric method, like sociometry, is aimed at analyzing specific interpersonal preferences. At the same time, the layer of interpersonal relations, the nature of which is revealed using the referentometric procedure, is qualitatively different from that which is the subject of analysis of the sociometric methodology. So, if, using the latter, we turn to a system of relations of the “sympathy – antipathy” type, then the totality of referentometric choices in the group allows us to analyze a much deeper layer of interpersonal relations mediated by the goals, objectives and content of the group activity of interindividual communication, i.e. clear value factors.

Description of the methodical procedure. The referentometric procedure involves the sequential implementation of two actual experimental stages.

At the first stage, which is preliminary in relation to the main experimental series, almost any procedure is carried out that allows to identify the opinion, attitude, position of each member of the group about a particular event, phenomenon that is significant for the community, or evaluate, compare partners in interaction. The nature of the procedure and its content orientation are determined by the task of the survey being undertaken. So, if the purpose of this particular experiment is to determine the reference persons in the group, then a sociometric survey can be used at the first stage. In any case, the result of the first experimental stage is a set of opinions and judgments of all members of the group without exception regarding some object of evaluation that is significant for them.

At this stage, the experimenter can work with the group as a whole.

There are two main requirements for such a procedure. First, as already mentioned above, both the object of evaluation and the procedure itself must be highly significant for the subjects. Secondly, the experiment must be organized in such a way that no subject knows the answers of his group mates.

The actual referentometric questioning begins at the second stage of the experimental work, either a little later or immediately after the completion of its first stage. As we have already indicated above, the main goal of this procedure is to identify those persons whose position (i.e., the opinions and assessments expressed by them at the preliminary stage) interests the subject the most, and therefore is especially significant for him.

In the traditional form, the referentometric survey is conducted individually. In this case, starting to work with each subject, the experimenter, first of all, finds out whether he agrees that the form he filled out at the previous stage be shown to those members of the group who are interested in this. The fact of agreeing or disagreeing with such a perspective is recorded by the experimenter in his notes. Then it is brought to the attention of the subject that the majority of his comrades do not object to the rest of the group getting acquainted with their questionnaires. At the same time, the subject himself is invited to name those whose questionnaires he would like to get acquainted with. In order to maximize the selectivity of such a choice, the subject is first warned that he will be able to “look” at only one form. After the subject gives the name of his owner, the experimenter, referring to the fact that the latter may not agree to make his answers public, suggests that another member of the group be named whose experimental form the subject would like to see. When this, second, choice is also made, the respondent is allowed to name one more person as an “exception”, whose answers at the preliminary stage are of interest to the subject. As special studies have shown, the number of such choices should not exceed three, since otherwise the selectivity of the demonstrated interindividual preferences is sharply reduced, and, consequently, the nature of the relationship of interpersonal significance appears before the experimenter not only in a clearly truncated, but also in a clearly distorted form.

It is clear that referentometry carried out in the form of an individual survey makes it possible to obtain a large array of additional data that can serve as valuable background material in relation to the referentometric selections themselves. At the same time, it is quite clear that the experimenter, who does not always work with this method, has a sufficient margin of time for multiple (according to the number of group members) replication of an individual survey.

In this regard, he has to use in his work, as a rule, a group form of referentometry. In this case, the information obtained as a result of purposeful observation carried out in parallel with the referentometry is, of course, much more scarce than as a result of an individual survey, but the time spent on the referentometric procedure itself is significantly reduced. In this version of referentometry, it is assumed that immediately after the first experimental stage (we recall that this phase of the experiment in any case involves working with the group as a whole), the actual referentometric questioning of the entire surveyed community begins.

So, if at the first stage, for example, a sociometric procedure was carried out, the experimenter asks each subject on the back of his completed sociometric form to put either a “+” sign or a “-” sign, depending on whether he agrees or does not agree to make his answers public . Then, similarly to how it is done with an individual form of questioning, the experimenter allows each member of the group to successively designate no more than three of his comrades, whose forms interest him most. The peculiarity of this procedure lies only in the fact that these names are recorded not by the experimenter, as happens in the conditions of an individual examination, but by the subject himself, writing them in a column on the back of his sociometric questionnaire.

Here it should be specially emphasized once again that the referentometric technique in the procedural plan has a pronounced indirect character. In other words, when identifying reference persons, it is in no way permissible to ask the subject a direct question about which of the members of the group is most significant for him, whose opinion and assessment he is inclined to reckon with in the first place. The fact is that in the direct formulation of such a question, it would be simply naive to count on obtaining data that adequately reveals the real state of affairs. On the one hand, not everyone and far from always can successfully cope with such a “frontal” task, since they themselves are not fully aware of the nature of interpersonal relations in the group of their membership and their own position in this community, on the other hand, often, even fully aware of the importance for themselves of one or another partner in interaction and communication, the subjects do not want to admit to anyone that they personally experience a certain dependence on the opinion, assessment, attitude of a particular person. All this dictates the need to use an indirect survey to identify the degree of significance of each member of the group for his comrades, an example of which is such a technique as referentometry.

Data processing. When processing the material obtained as a result of the referentometry, only the empirical data of the referentometric survey itself, i.e., the second stage of the experiment, are analyzed . All referentometric choices are recorded in a special matrix, which is built by the experimenter, based on the totality of the answers of the subjects. The principles of its construction, in fact, are no different from the principles of constructing a matrix of sociometric choices in a group.

No. 51. Methods of indirect assessment of interpersonal relationships.

The most well-known methods are based on the laws of proxemic behavior of people. Their main premise is that the subject’s choice of position in space relative to another person or group of persons depends on his interpersonal relationships – a positive emotional attitude is manifested in the choice of a closer distance.

Research tools based on the phenomena of “personal space” can be divided into three categories:

-methods of observing the real situation (provide the most reliable information about interpersonal relationships);

-methods of symbolic modeling of a real situation (According to the method described by J. Kut, the child puts the cut out figures of different people on a velvet board. When comparing the data on the linear distances between the located figures with the corresponding research data on other psychological methods, the author came to the conclusion that emotional distances between people are expressed through linear distances in a symbolic situation.);

-projective means based on the principle under discussion do not differ significantly from the methodological methods of modeling, however, with their procedure and stimulus material, they are aimed at a certain area of knowledge. For example, the Peterson method is aimed at studying family relationships. It includes a model of the room (the floor of the room is marked with transverse lines for the convenience of measuring the distance), toy figures of family members. The child, playing in the “family” and placing its members in a certain way, provides the researcher with easily interpretable material. In most cases, the estimate of the distance between the figures is only a small part of the interpreted material of the projective technique, one of its parameters. It is used in methods based on gaming activities, in interpreting a family drawing, in structuring displayed interpersonal situations.

In addition to methodological techniques based on the laws of proxemic behavior, procedures for the study of interpersonal relationships are created based on the characteristics of the paralinguistic components of speech, takeshika and eye contact. It has been shown that it is eye contact that makes it possible to judge the onset of interaction; an increase in the time of mutual eye contact indicates a warmer relationship between partners.

The main disadvantage of methods for indirect assessment of interpersonal relations is that they are not developed, that they provide relatively narrow information. In practice, diagnostic methods (for example, based on proxemic phenomena) are very close to the methodological methods of studying the phenomena themselves. However, this principle of assessing interpersonal relationships seems to us very promising.

No. 52. Psychological atmosphere in the team.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.