SYMLOG, an acronym for the System for Multiple Level Observation of Groups, represents both theory and method for defining and analyzing the interaction among group participants. Based upon Bales's life work, SYMLOG provides efficient data-capture techniques allowing managers and interventionists to collect group member perceptions about the interaction in their work group or in the larger organization. SYMLOG, as introduced by Bales and Cohen (1979), has been subjected to validity and reliability investigations; minor revisions have emerged. Researchers are using SYMLOG in their investigations of group and organizational communication; consultants are using SYMLOG to distinguish among work groups and provide effective feedback in interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3.
Bales, R. F. (1980). SYMLOG case study kit. New York: Free Press.
4.
Bales, R. F. , & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.
5.
Bales, R. F. , Koenigs, R. J., & Roman, P. D. (1987). Criteria for adaptation of SYMLOG rating items to particular populations and cultural contexts. International Journal of Small Group Research, 3(2), 161-179.
6.
Beck, D. (1987). Social differentiation in intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Small Group Research, 3(2), 221-223.
7.
Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 392-425.
8.
Boethius, S. B. (1987). The view from the middle: Perceiving patterns of interaction in middle management groups. International Journal of Small Group Research, 3(1), 1-15.
9.
Borgatta, E. , & Cottrell, L. S. (1955). On the classification of groups. Sociometry, 18, 665-678.
10.
Borgatta, E. , Cottrell, L. S., & Meyer, H. H. (1956). On the dimensions of group behavior. Sociometry, 19, 223-240.
11.
Carter, L. R. (1954). Recording and evaluating the performance of individuals as members of small groups. Personnel Psychology, 7, 477-484.
12.
Cattell, R. B. , Saunders, D. R., & Stice, G. F. (1953). The dimensions of syntality in small groups: I. The neonate group. Human Relations, 6, 331-356.
13.
Cegala, D. , Wall, V. D., Jr., & Rippey, G. (1987). An investigation of interaction involvement and the dimensions of SYMLOG: Perceived communication behaviors of persons in task-oriented groups. Central States Speech Journal, 38(2), 81-93.
14.
Chmielewski, T. , & Springston, J. (1988). A SYMLOG analysis of group conflict, orientation, and evaluation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans.
15.
Diehl-Becker, A. (1987). Comparison of a German and an American version of a SYMLOG-atlas on every-day descriptions of behavior. International Journal of Small Group Research, 3(2), 213-219.
16.
Downs, C. W. , Archer, J., McGrath, J., & Stafford, J. (1988). An analysis of communication style instrumentation. Management Communication Quarterly, 1(4), 543-571.
17.
Farrell, M. P. , Heineman, G. D., & Schmitt, M. H. (1986). Informal roles, rituals, and styles of humor in interdisciplinary health care teams: Their relationships to stages of group development. International Journal of Small Group Research, 2(2), 143-162.
18.
Farrell, M. P. , Schmitt, M. H., & Heinemann, G. D. (1988). Organizational environments of health care teams: Impact on team development and implications for consultation. International Journal of Small Group Research, 4(1), 31-54.
19.
Forgas, J. P. (1978). Social episodes and social structure in an academic setting: The social environment of an intact group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 434-448.
20.
Hattink, J. J. A. (1985). SYMLOG in the classroom. International Journal of Small Group Research, 1(2), 176-181.
21.
Isenberg, D. J. , & Ennis, J. G. (1981). Perceiving group members: A comparison of derived and imposed dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 293-305.
22.
Jesuino, J. C. (1985). Assessment of leaders by SYMLOG. International Journal of Small Group Research, 1(1), 87-88.
23.
Kelly, L. , & Begnal, C. F. (1984). Group members' orientations toward decision processes. In G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Emergent issues in human decision making (pp. 63-79). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
24.
Kelly, L. , & Duran, R. L. (1985). Interaction and performance in small groups: A descriptive report. International Journal of Small Group Research, 1(2), 182-192.
25.
Kelly, L. & Duran, R. L. (1986). A replication of Parke and Houben's study of group types. International Journal of Small Group Research, 2(2), 186-196.
26.
Keyton, J. (1985). A field study using SYMLOG dynamics as indicators of conflict, self-concept, and decision making. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
27.
Keyton, J. (1987). An examination of the compatibility and effectiveness of self-selected small task groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
28.
Kohler, A. (1986). Seven years with SYMLOG: A review of research. International Journal of Small Group Research, 2(1), 83-89.
29.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. New York: Ronald.
30.
Orlik, P. (1987). Ein semantischer atlas zur Kodierung altagssprachlicher Verhaltensbeschreibungen nach dem SYMLOG-raummodell. International Journal of Small Group Research, 3(1), 88-112.
31.
Park, J. H. (1987). A study on the social perception and dependency between generations in Korean families. (Abstract). International Journal of Small Group Research, 3(2), 237-238.
32.
Parke, B. K. , & Houben, H. C. (1985). An objective analysis of group types. International Journal of Small Group Research, 1(2), 131-149.
33.
Polley, R. B. (1984). SYMLOG [Computer program]. Portland, OR. Author.
34.
Polley, R. B. (1985). The diagnosis of intact work groups. Consultation, 4(4), 273-283.
35.
Polley, R. B. (1986). Rethinking the third dimension. International Journal of Small Group Research, 2(2), 134-142.
36.
Polley, R. B. (1987). Dimensions of social interaction: A method for the improvement of rating scales. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(1), 72-82.
37.
Polley, R. B. (1988). Group field dynamics and effective mediation. International Journal of Small Group Research, 4(1), 55-75.
38.
Poole, M. S. , & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1986). Communication and group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 15-31). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
Rywick, T. (1987). SYMLOG rating form reliability. International Journal of Small Group Research, 3(1), 119-125.
40.
Schantz, D. (1986). The use of SYMLOG as a diagnostic tool in drug-related problems on the job. International Journal of Small Group Research, 2(2), 219-224.
41.
Springston, J. , Chmielewski, T., & Keyton, J. (1988). [Revising SYMLOG's F-B dimension: Adjective Rating Validation]. Unpublished raw data.
42.
SYMLOG Consulting Group . (1986). SYMLOG [Computer program]. Woodland Hills, CA: Author.
43.
Tootell, G. , Mason, L., Taraldson, J., Barnhill, M., & Prather, P. (1986). The independence of norms in small groups. International Journal of Small Group Research, 2(1), 61-70.
44.
Wall, V. D., Jr. , & Galanes, G. (1986). The SYMLOG dimensions and small group conflict. Central States Speech Journal, 37(2), 61-78.
45.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 395-412.
46.
Wish, M. , D'Andrade, R. G., & Goodnow, J. E. (1980). Dimensions of interpersonal communication: Correspondence between structures for speech acts and bipolar scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 848-860.
47.
Wish, M. , Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. J. (1976). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 409-420.
