One of the founders of the field of
group psychotherapy was Jacob L. Moreno, M.D. (1889-1974), who is best
known more for his having invented psychodrama. He was also a pioneer
in developing “role theory” in social psychology, and Moreno was also
the first to write about this intangible dynamic that he called
“tele”—roughly equivalent to my use of the term “rapport” (Blatner,
1994). Sociometry might be defined also as Moreno’s term for
procedures that assess the types and degrees of tele (or rapport) in a
group. Moreno introduced the idea of sociometry in 1934 in his major
work on the subject, Who Shall Survive?, which was published again as
an expanded and revised edition in 1953 (and further editions published
since then) (Moreno, 1953).
For a while in the 1940s and 1950s major psychologists and sociologists
were interested in what they said was the great potential of
sociometry. In 1937, Moreno founded a journal titled
Sociometry: A Journal of Inter-Group
Relations. By the mid-1950s, Moreno had turned his attention
more to psychodrama, group psychotherapy, and applications of these
approaches in education, business, and related fields, so he allowed
the Sociometry journal to be taken over by the American Sociological
Society. But his interest in this general approach continued for a
while in sociology. Moreno continued to note the importance of this
approach and it has been included as a significant component in the
training and certification of psychodramatists. Blatner (2009) has
noted many citations in his online bibliography of writings in
sociometry. The point here is that some knowledge of the principles of
sociometry and its associated techniques has
application as a theme to be kept in mind by group therapists while
running groups!
Role Theory
It would go beyond the scope of this paper to discuss this aspect of
social psychology fully, but for Moreno the idea that thinking in terms
of the roles people play offered a particularly natural vehicle for
explaining many of his sociometric concepts. For example, a person
doesn’t just prefer another in general, but rather prefers to share
certain dimensions or activities associated with a given role. Thus,
person A might prefer to date person B because of a sexual or romantic
interest, but for playing tennis or working on a project at his job he
might prefer persons C or D.
While there is a natural continuity in the theories of psychodrama
among role theory, role playing, sociometry, sociodrama, and other
methods, each method also can be applied separately (Blatner, 2007).
Nevertheless, Moreno’s underlying ideas about the liberation of
spontaneity and creativity apply to all these methods.
Theoretical Foundations
You may recall many situations in which your teammates, laboratory
partners, study group partners, and such were not chosen by you (or by
a process where the students naturally choose each other), but rather
were assigned arbitrarily by your teachers, perhaps according to height
or the alphabetical order of the first letter of your last name.
Essentially, you were treated like equal, replaceable cogs in a
machine, and this, alas, is still mainly how teachers and others
operate.
What Moreno noticed, though, is that people have preferences that do
not follow any arbitrary order. For example, a young person may fall in
love with another who is not an “appropriate” choice (according to
parents or neighbors), and such unusual pairings have been the subject
of many literary works, such as Romeo and Juliet. Why not let people
live and work with those with whom they have the greatest degree of
reciprocated rapport? Moreno noticed that people were happier and
worked better together when they were allowed to choose their neighbors
or teammates.
This whole dynamic was linked to a broader principle Moreno was
thinking about: How can we develop the level of creativity in our
world? He recognized that creativity emerges in proportion to the
levels of mental freedom people experience, and this in turn links his
thinking to ideas about spontaneity, improvisation, playfulness, and
the like. In one direction it led to psychodrama, but, addressed to the
challenge of organizations, it led to sociometry—his term for the
general field of exploring the dynamics of rapport.
The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations
Moreno was one of the first (if not the first) to use the term,
“interpersonal relations.” In a sense, he saw the artificiality of
compartmentalization between individual and social psychology—they were
inextricable. (In a similar way, the child psychoanalyst D. W.
Winnicott noted that “there’s no such thing as a baby,” meaning that
any appreciation of the nature of infancy must be deeply
inter-personal.) This view, in short, applied principles of holism and
ecology to the arena of psychology.
There are many deep psychological elements mixed together here—the
dynamic involves other aspects of adults’ envy and resentment of their
children’s relative freedom and spontaneity. There is a fairly
pervasive tendency among the more powerful to limit these unsettling
qualities in those over whom they have power, so this dynamic extends
throughout our culture and relates to such other phenomena as play,
imaginativeness, the suppression of whatever is regarded as feminine,
and of course the oppression of women in many different various ways.
In spite of this layer of rationalized oppression, people intuitively
feel awkward and emotionally uncomfortable about the way they have been
conditioned to think that personal preference was a factor to be
repressed, neglected, marginalized. Yet this dynamic goes on anyway at
the unconscious level and may be brought into consciousness without too
much difficulty! All that needs to happen is for the group leader to
begin to make this topic a meaningful area of inquiry, letting
awareness of personal preference become a social norm.
So, sociometry, in one of its more practical applications, leads to
letting people express whom they would want to work with on various
tasks, and then, as much as possible, honoring those preferences.
Research has shown that group performance improves when groups are
formed based on an intuitive sense of congeniality.
Sociometry as Part of Group Psychotherapy
Psychodrama was created as a type of group psychotherapy, and Moreno
organized the first association for group therapists, the American
Society for Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama (ASGPP)—in 1942, just a
few months before Samuel Slavson, a rival, organized the American Group
Psychotherapy Association (AGPA) the same year (Gazda, 1968). Slavson
was more willing to align his efforts with the then-dominant school of
psychoanalysis, so the AGPA became more of the establishment
mainstream. One of the problems with psychodrama was that it was more
individual-centered during a major part of its procedure. During an
enactment, the situation of an individual patient, the protagonist, is
investigated. More conventional group dynamics are more noticeable in
the warm-up before the main enactment and certainly after the
psychodrama proper, during the “sharing” phase. Within all this, and
even in the enactment, where other group members play key roles such as
the patient’s spouse, employer, child, inner-self, and so forth, a
major principle of group therapy is obtained—that is, not just the
professional “leading” the group, but each person is to be recognized
as being a co-therapist to the others.
Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons (which the author describes at
length in his Foundations of Psychodrama book), psychodrama did not
catch on as a primary therapeutic method. A problem with that is that
sociometry was associated mainly with psychodrama in Moreno’s mind—he
believed the two approaches involved each other—and that made
sociometry somewhat of a side-technique of psychodrama. The point of
this paper is to remedy that. As I argue in another paper, many of
Moreno’s ideas have significant validity and can stand on their own; it
is not necessary to feel one has to buy and use the whole package
(Blatner, 2007)! So this paper is an introduction to sociometry for the
general group psychotherapist.
Sociometry as a Depth Psychology
If one considers how deep the pain and confusion runs in not being
chosen by those whom you want to choose you, or the guilt for not
preferring those families, and innumerable other phenomena, it becomes
apparent that the psychological reactions attached to the psychology of
personal preference run deep—indeed, as deeply as any other profoundly
emotional or sensitive dynamics. In this light, sociometry overlaps
issues addressed by Harry Stack Sullivan’s thoughts about interpersonal
relations and psychoanalytic object relations theory. Sociometry,
though, reconnects intrapsychic dynamics with real interpersonal
tensions, group issues, organizational and sub-cultural arrangements,
and cultural norms.
The problem is not just that we have preferences, but rather that
people tend to feel hurt when they are not preferred by others, and in
turn want to avoid hurting others were they to discover that they are
not preferred. In addition, we don’t want to feel hurt, or even
take the chance of making choice explicit lest we find out what we
would prefer not to know. Then there’s the social facade—if you’re
hurt, don’t let it show. In other words, what happens naturally, what
must happen in fact, at least with some people, is almost taboo to
comment on openly.
Freud talked about the universality of sexuality, and in one sense he
was right: If we expand the sexual to include non-genital dynamics of
attraction and repulsion, of wanting and not wanting relationships,
then we put a different frame around the dynamic. I don’t think the
Oedipal Complex is at all universal—in terms of its association with
penises and all. Freud came from a home in which he had a young
seductive mother, an older forbidding father, and there is some
evidence that he may have become genitally sexually overstimulated by a
nanny when he was around two. I will grant that he probably had a
classical Oedipal complex, and acknowledge that this family dynamic
occasionally occurs.
However, there is another situation that partakes of the dynamics of
the Oedipal triangle without involving parents so much, nor does it
involve genitalia. Around four to six years of age, almost all children
begin to play with two or more other youngsters at the same time, and
it is inevitable that they will discover the conundrum in which two or
three children enjoy playing with each other and a fourth child gets
left out—perhaps about some kind of game that the fourth child doesn
not fit. Often the one left out has no talent or even no interest in
that game. Still, what happens is the feeling of being not chosen, left
out, rejected, hurt, or not liked.
There is also a varying degree of sensitivity and empathy so that some
children notice who is left out and being empathic, they feel bad,
guilty, sad, compassionate. Some youngsters go out of their way to be
inclusive of the left-out-one in order to compensate—even if the
left-out-one does not really want to play that game. It gets complex.
There is also the experience of intuitively preferring some members in
an extended family and not others, but being expected by parents and
grandparents to show warmth equally (for example) to Aunt Suzy and Aunt
Betty, even though with Aunt Suzy, the positive tele or rapport flows
naturally, while with Aunt Betty, the tele is mixed or negative, so the
behavior feels inauthentic. The point here is that there are
social pressures to over-ride feelings of non-preference.
Another dynamic that occasionally happens is that a parent might feel
jealous to discover that his or her child seems to prefer being with
another relative, such as his aunt or uncle. In other words, there is a
norm of a kind of social egalitarianism that belies the reality that
children sometimes click more with one parent or a teacher and not with
others. Of course, these dynamics are recapitulated in the group.
Talking about the nature of tele and how this is natural and inevitable
would help.
From another perspective, and rarely addressed in families or even in
family therapy, is the dynamic in which a parent has mixed and
sometimes distinctly negative feelings towards one of their own
children. Some parents engage in reaction formation, extending
themselves heroically to compensate for these underlying negative
feelings, sometimes to the point of neglecting the less-problematic
child. Then there is the problem of a child (or young adult) just not
liking a parent, even if the parent has not done anything egregious to
justify this rejection.
What is unrealistic is the cultural assumption that parents should not
just fulfill their duties towards their offspring, but more, they
should like their children; and they are bad parents if they do not.
But we cannot help our feelings of personal preference! Occasionally
there are distinct feelings of dislike, but more often it might more
accurately be said that a given parent-child pair share a more neutral
tele or ambivalent feelings. At best, the parents can be helped to
become aware of them and learn to manage their reactions. For those
parents and children feel exceptionally positive rapport with each
other, extra efforts must then be made to “let go” as the youngsters
move towards independence.
Then there is the problem of favoritism, which in modern families has
become less acceptable. But in fact that is an unrealistic
expectation on the emotional level. A parent may manage to be fairly
even-handed in behavior, but with each additional child the chances go
up significantly that one of the children will be liked noticeably more
or less than the others. Few parents can admit this to themselves, much
less discuss it openly with their spouse.
In other words, rapport (tele) is a dynamic that has significant
influence in the interpersonal and group dynamic, and it’s not under
much conscious control or intention. The important thing is to notice
it, and to notice also how and why it is overlooked. Partly this is
honest ignorance—there just has not been that much written about it in
the mainstream textbooks and literature. (That is partly due to the
continuing and highly artificial academic division between individual
and social psychology.) Another part is due to what I can only imagine
as repression—a tendency to avoid what is deeply mysterious and
uncomfortable. The point of this paper is to draw your attention to
this dynamic and help your clients acknowledge it, become more
sensitive to these feelings, and bring them to consciousness where they
can be managed within the framework of awareness and explicit values.
Practical Applications (Part 2, November 2010)
One of the most fundamental dynamics in groups is the way people
connect intuitively, feeling either greater or lesser rapport,
sometimes even a sense of negativity—or repulsion. Go to any
conference, party, or weekend retreat, and you will notice that you
feel a natural connection with a small percentage of others; a milder
positive feeling towards a fair number of people; a level of neutrality
or even indifference towards some; and there are a few folks who give
you the creeps or generate bad vibes. Also, it should be noted
that often there are no easily identifiable reasons for these
variations in preferences. In a larger world, notice also that you are
not particularly interested in most people, in spite of the fact that
they have done nothing at all wrong—it’s just a difference in
interests. If you think about it further, you’ll also realize that for
the same reason, most people are not particularly interested in you.
Nevertheless, when you encounter less than positive feelings, there
occurs a low-grade feeling of interpersonal vulnerability, and it is
this sensitivity that is the focus of this paper. Variations in rapport
and the circumstances for these fluctuations can operate as important
factors in individual and group psychodynamics (Blatner, 2009a, pg 311).
Re-Cognizing the Reality of Interpersonal Preference
While the attempt to discover more complex mathematical models for
sociometry was explored by others—and it gradually disappeared from the
literature by the 1980s—it should be more explicitly
recognized—re-thought, re-cognized—that feelings of attraction or
repulsion happen, and it is wiser to become conscious of what is going
on than to ignore it. Since group therapy involves the development of
consciousness for the participants, this it follows that people will
benefit from becoming more aware of how they actually feel towards
others, and from noticing whether these feelings are reciprocated.
As with other feelings, many people override what they feel with
assertions about what they think they are supposed to feel. All the
defense mechanisms that people use about their own emotions are also
exercised in this arena of how we intuitively feel about others and
about how we sense that others feel towards us. This interpersonal
perception can be valid and it can also be distorted by transferences
and projections.
Another way to think of this dynamic is that people intrinsically
develop preferences—for food, for styles of clothing, for pets, and, in
a more complex way, for people. With people, though, the dynamics of
preference are more complex, because we feel hurt if someone we prefer
does not reciprocate our preference or seems to prefer someone else.
Likewise, we intuitively try to avoid hurting others—at least if we are
socially sensitive. The point is that this whole arena of rapport is
emotionally loaded and should be kept in mind as an active dynamic in
any therapy group.
Practical Applications
The group therapist who is going to work with more than six people for
more than six weeks might do well to incorporate the themes that will
be weaving in and out of discussions: Typically, what emerges in
a group environment are such elements as preference; the temptation to
feel hurt at not being chosen; or the obligation not to hurt anyone
else. There is a layer of courtesy and general social friendliness that
operates, and yet the truth is that people in the group will have
certain intuitive preferences. They cannot help it, and they cannot
will it to be different. One lesson to be learned: If A does not feel
rapport with B, she learns to at least try to be meticulously courteous
and tactful. In a therapy group, group members might even admit this
sense of distance without having to build up a bunch of reasons. You do
not have to justify not preferring someone—it happens.
Part of the warm-up might involve some matter-of-fact discussion that
these dynamics happen, they should not be a source of guilt or shame,
that these patterns are ubiquitous in human affairs, and that, in
general, they are not talked about. Perhaps the therapist should say
that once folks get to know each other more, these factors can—and
sometimes should—be talked about.
Another statement that can be mentioned early is that preference is
role-based in many cases: A prefers B over C for certain roles, but in
other activities, we might just as well prefer C over B. So not being
preferred by everyone should not imply that the non-preferred one is in
any way bad or lacking—just that different folks not only need
different strokes, but make different choices about people with which
to share time or roles.
The guilt and shame over not being chosen is a deep narcissistic wound,
an almost universal wound, and it exists even more sharply not only
because it is repressed, but also because our culture tends to be a
competitive, shame-based one. Being not-chosen for a game is a
statement not of perceived talent, but rather of essential character,
reputation, as if one’s basic okay-ness were in question. And yet even
the seemingly popular kids have certain roles or facets where they feel
not-chosen or less in status. The jocks envy the brains, and the brains
envy the jocks.
Healing
Part of group therapy and therapy in general involves developing a
grounding of becoming okay, of clarifying the reasons for experiencing
oneself as fundamentally valued and deserving of value. Many elements
from the recent trend toward positive psychology should be integrated
here, because people are pretty fragile (Seligman, 2002). Few know that
they are “wonder-filled” (a play on the word “wonderful”) and deserving
of strong self-esteem; unfortunately, instead, many people’s
minds turn to all the ways they experience themselves as lacking. That
grounding lays a foundation that makes it possible to consider those
aspects in which their fragility and emotional sensitivity is at risk.
(In other words, following one of my favorite rules of thumb, don’t put
people in touch with their inner negative voices until you have first
put them in touch with their inner supportive positive voices!)
It is important to warm up the group by talking about the reality of
differential preferences, and that it is universal and does not mean
that not being preferred means you are a loser. Eventually, though some
beginning sociometric exercises become very powerful catalysts of
discussion: What would you like to be chosen for? Is what people
choose you for really what you want to be known for? How can you better
let folks know your interests and values so that you can attract people
who interest you, and whose opinion matters to you a little more? What
are your experiences with having not been chosen first, or chosen at
all?
For groups whose members can tolerate a slightly deeper level of
introspection, the next step involves bringing up concerns that many
people are afraid to think to themselves: Am I liked? If not, why not?
Corollaries: How does it feel to be liked? What do people expect from
me? Will it be more than I can deliver? If I’m liked, can I then admit
anything bad about myself, for fear that I will lose what little good
will that I have accumulated? If I’m not preferred, should I try to fix
it? Why am I not preferred? Is it the way I look, the way I smell, or
other qualities about which I fantasize I am lacking or feel ashamed?
As I said, this stuff is powerfully deep!
Why We Choose
The answer to this question must be partial. A number of reasons for
preference are obvious, some not-so-obvious, and some will remain
ever-elusive to conscious investigation or being able to be put into
language. Many things go into preference, such as commonality in
certain elements in background or interest. This can be relative, so
that, for example, when visiting a foreign country, anyone who simply
speaks the same language tends to be preferred over one who does not.
Some preferences are based on the fact that the people involved share
common interests, such as a common enemy, a common profession, a common
language or gender. (The technical term for such connections is
“socio-telic.”) Another type of rapport is based on more personal
qualities, such as the other person’s charm, attractiveness, or other
often rather subjectively assessed qualities. (These involve
“psyche-telic” interactions.) The two criteria may fit, so that another
person may enjoy the personal qualities and find a common interest; or
they may not fit, from whence comes the saying, “politics makes strange
bedfellows.”
Getting group members to consider some of their reasons for preferring
and not preferring is another beginning exercise. Eventually, this will
result in your doing some sociometric tests, talking about them openly,
and assessing who prefers whom for what role or task. There is some art
in doing this, but the point of this paper is to just get you
interested in considering this whole dimension of group work.
Overriding Preference
Instead of allowing people to choose those whom they work with, or at
least including some feedback as to preference, teachers often assign
students according to height or the alphabetical order of their last
names for collaborative research or study. Similarly, administrators
assign their staff to work in task groups based on arbitrary factors.
Even psychotherapists and hospital unit directors tend to ignore member
preferences in organizing therapy or activity groups. In part this
derives from work and school systems that fail to take into
consideration individual differences and individual preferences—people
are treated as if they were interchangeable parts in a mass-production
factory. (As a result, people often feel that they don’t really measure
up to the ideal or standard qualities attributed to a role—they’re not
attractive, or strong, or adventurous, or good enough according to
their perception of what is optimal. The idea that individual
differences are inevitable is hardly acknowledged.)
Part of this leveling of individuality involves also our social
connectedness, our sense that we should be liked by everyone, and that
if we are not, there must be something wrong with us. In turn, we are
socialized to numb our own sense of preference. “You can’t have what
you want” applies to some aspects of realistic socialization
(i.e., you can not always eat as much of any food, can not hit even
though you feel like it), and equally importantly, this general
inhibitory rule is also applied to many other kinds things that are not
really necessary. (For example, why can’t you get up and walk around in
class? They do it in Montessori classrooms!)
All this is leading to the realization that normal people are taught to
override their preferences socially and in many other ways.
Occasionally this self-discipline is conscious, and that which is put
off is at least retrievable. Often, though, the conditioning is
pervasive and strong enough to generate repression, so that a person
can no longer get in touch with not only what he has avoided
seeing, feeling, preferring, but also cannot recognize that he has ever
avoided knowing these things. For example, A feels uncomfortable with a
cousin, B, at a family gathering, but cannot identify why—memories of
the cousin’s having been bullying when they were kids playing together
have been repressed, forgotten.
Working Creatively with Tele
Sociometry is a vast field, and this is just an introduction for the
group therapist. More important is your recognition that creativity is
indeed the major
kernel for the group therapist to utilize in your work. Because of the
differences in populations, each group requires a slightly different
approach. The point of this paper, though, is that group members be
gently reminded that rapport is one of the dimensions of psychology
they will want to attend to. An important final principle to be
mentioned here is
that tele is role-based. For example, a person might prefer to in a
study group with a person of the opposite sex, but not want to have a
sexual relationship with that person.
As another example, A might want to play a certain sport with C, who
has around his level of skill at that game, while not wanting to play
with B, who either is much better or much worse. On the other hand, A
might prefer to do some other activity more with A or B than with
C. Thus, when the group therapist might respond to the discovery
of neutral or negative tele in a group, there might be an
opportunity to explore different roles. Perhaps A in the group isn’t
able to talk about sex with B, but in other ways finds B more
comfortable. Exploring different interests, then, can often counter
initial intuitions about areas of incompatibility.
Finally, this awareness in general might also apply as group members
talk about their interactions online with others on email, listserves,
or in various social networking contexts (e.g., Facebook,
MySpace, LinkedIn, Second Life, etc.) The “netiquette” hasn’t
been worked out regarding when to reply, when to feel hurt if someone
doesn’t reply, and so forth.
Summary
The psychology of interpersonal preference is an obvious but rather
thorny dimension of all interpersonal relationships and group dynamics.
It can be overlooked, avoided, treated as “too sensitive,” and often
this is what happens. As a result, various group dynamics emerge that I
would like to address:
1. For example, A senses negative tele with B and unconsciously
believes he needs to justify this feeling, leading to his coming up
with reasons for his feeling, building a case whereby B seems worthy of
being disliked. This sadly very common dynamic happens because of the
capacity of the mind to rationalize feelings. However, if A knew about
the dynamics of tele, it might be possible to just notice the feeling
without feeling compelled to make the other person wrong or bad. There
would then be more room later on to find an area of positive tele,
perhaps a common interest or a pleasant quality. another person,
there is a tendency to rationalize this by building up a case, having
to make the disliked person worthy of being disliked, as if they had
done something wrong.
On the receiving end, if A was perceived by B to have any degree of
status in the group, sensing this coolness would tend to lead B to
feeling ashamed, hurt, and/or defensive. In turn, such
misunderstandings tend to remain unconscious and may lead in turn to
sabotaging or resentful or displaced behavior. Being aware of the
dynamics of rapport might instead lead these two to
check out the actual dynamics involve and release each other, or seek
to consciously create better tele. Of course, this would be good
modeling for the other group members, too.
If the group therapist is alert to these dynamics and brings them up
with any degree of frequency, such interactions may lead to a
heightening of sensitivity about the way rapport actually happens, and
the building of skills to accurately identify and cope with such
interactions.
2. It’s useful for group therapists to ask such questions as, “Do you
feel heard? / or seen, or known?” With proper preparation, the
therapist might also ask, “Do you feel liked? Forgiven? Understood?
Appreciated?” These are powerful questions that can evoke deep
responses and fodder for the group, because almost everyone shares—if
not the specifics of a given person’s relationship with another—, then
the more general theme of wanting to be closer to someone who does not
reciprocate the feeling. Sociometry then can be a powerful agent also
of group cohesion.
I hope these ideas stimulate the reader to follow up and learn more
about this important sub-field of what I consider to be not just a kind
of social psychology, but also depth psychology.
References
The literature on sociometry is extensive—as noted in my
bibliography on sociometry (Blatner, 2009a), but some writings, as
noted in the following references, seem to me to be of significant
practical value:
Blatner, A. (1994). Tele: The Dynamics of
Interpersonal Preference. In P. Holmes, M. Karp, & M. Watson
(Eds.),
Psychodrama since Moreno:
Innovations in theory and practice.
London: Routlege. (This and other webpages about sociometry may also be
found on the
author’s website, links above.)
Blatner, A. (2000). Sociometry (pp.188-213). In
Foundations of psychodrama: History,
theory and practice. New York:
Springer.
Blatner, A. (2007). Morenean approaches: recognizing
psychodrama’s many facets.
Journal
of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama
& Sociometry, 59 (4), 159-170.
Blatner, A. (2009a). The place of psychodramatic
method and concepts in conventional group and individual therapy.
GROUP: The Journal of the Eastern
Group Psychotherapy Society, 33 (4).
309-314.
Blatner, A. (2009b). Bibliography of Sociometry.
Retrieved 6/22/11 from:
http://www.blatner.com/adam/pdntbk/sociombibliog.html
Gazda, G. M. (1968). Group psychotherapy: its
definition and history. In G. M. Gazda (Ed.),
Innovations to group
psychotherapy. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Hale, A. E. (1985).
Conducting clinical
sociometric explorations: A manual for psychodramatists and
sociometrists. Roanoke, VA: Author.
Hale, A. E. (2009). Moreno’s sociometry: Exploring
interpersonal connections.
GROUP:
The Journal of the Eastern Group
Psychotherapy Society, 33 (4). 347-358.
Moreno, J. L. (1953b).
Who
shall survive? Foundations of
sociometry, group psychotherapy and sociodrama (2nd ed.).
Beacon,
NY: Beacon House. Also available to be read without charge via
the internet: http://www.asgpp.org/docs/WSS/WSS.html
Seligman, M.E.P. (2002).
Authentic
happiness. New York: Free Press.
Treadwell, T. W., Kumar, V. K., Stein, S. A., & Prosnick, K..
(1998). Sociometry: Tools for research and practice.
International
Journal of Action Methods, 51(1), 23-40. (Originally, in 1997,
Journal
for Specialists in Group Work, 22 (1), 52-65.)
For more about sociometry, see other papers
on this website, such as
