Observational scoring and memory-based ratings were compared
as measures of small group process. Measurement methods were
derived from SYMLOG (System for the Multiple Level Observation
of Groups) and were used by four raters to score or rate the behavior
of group participants. Four groups were studied during marital
counseling in a correctional environment. Each group consisted of
an incarcerated husband, his wife, and a psychiatrist. Product-
moment correlations and perceptual mapping were used as indi
cators of convergence between scored and rated behavior. Some
convergence was indicated by correlations, which ranged from. 62 to
.86. This convergence varied within different groups and different
aggregations of data. Various reasons for lack of complete conver
gence between scoring and rating are discussed. It is argued that
perceptual mapping can be a useful method of making comparisons
among data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bales, R.F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groupsReading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bales, R.F. (1981, August). The new field theory in social psychologyPaper presented at the 89th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
4.
Bales, R. F. (Ed.). (1983, July). SYMLOG newsletter. (Available from Editor, 61 Scotch Pine Rd., Weston, MA 02193)
5.
Bales, R.F. & Isenberg, D.J. (1982) SYMLOG and leadership theory In J. Hunt, C. Schriesheim, & U. Sekaran (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views.Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press.
6.
Bales, R.F., Cohen, S.P., & Williamson, S.A. (1979). SYMLOG-A system for the multiple level observation of groupsNew York: Free Press.
7.
Benjamin, L.S. (1977). Structural analysis of a family in therapyJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 45, 391-406.
8.
Block, J., Weiss, D.S., & Thorne, A. (1979). How relevant is a semantic similarity interpretation of personality ratings?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1055-1074.
9.
Borgatta, E.F., Cottrell, L.S., & Mann, J.H. (1958). The spectrum of individual interaction characteristics: An interdimensional analysisPsychological Reports , 4, 279-319.
10.
Borman, W.C. (1983). Implications of personality theory and research for the rating of work performance in organizations In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Eysenck, H.J. (1954) The psychology of politicsLondon:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
12.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectivenessNew York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Gibbard, G.S. (1981). A framework for the integration of social psychologyContemporary Psychology, 26, 14-15.
14.
Guion, R.M. (1965). Personnel testingNew York : McGraw-Hill.
15.
Isenberg, D.J., & Ennis, J.G. (1981). Perceiving group members: A comparison of derived and imposed dimensionsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 293-305.
16.
Jones, A.P., & James, L.R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptionsOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 201-250.
17.
Kenny, D.A., & Berman, J.S. (1980). Statistical approaches to the correction of correlational biasPsychological Bulletin, 88, 288-295.
18.
Lamiell, J.T., Foss, M.A., & Cavenee, P. (1980). On the relationship between conceptual schemes and behavior reports: A closer lookJournal of Personality , 48, 54-73.
Mann, R.D. (1959). The relation between personality characteristics and individual performance in small groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of Michigan, Ann Arbor .
22.
Marshall, J. (1982). Organizational culture: Elements in its portraiture and some implications for organizational functioningGroup & Organization Studies,7 , 367-384.
23.
Mehrabian, A. (1980). Basic dimensions for a general psychological theoryCambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.
24.
Osgood, C.E. (1970). Interpersonal verbs and interpersonal behavior In J. L. Cowan (Ed.), Studies in thought and language.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
25.
Osgood, C.E., Succi, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The measurement of meaningUrbana: University of Illinois Press.
26.
Phillips, J.S., & Lord, R.G. (1982). Schematic information processing and perceptions of leadership in problem-solving groupsJournal of Applied Psychology, 67, 486-492.
27.
Pinsof, W.M. (1981). Family therapy process research In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook offamily therapy.New York: Brunner/Mazel .
28.
Roberts, K.H., Hulin, C.L., & Rousseau, D.M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizationsSan Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
Scheflen, A.E. (1973). Communication structure: Analysis of a psychotherapy transactionBloomington: Indiana University Press.
30.
Shweder, R.A. (1980). Factors and fictions in person perception: A reply to Lamiell, Foss, and CaveneeJournal of Personality , 48, 74-81.
31.
Shweder, R.A., & D'Andrade, R.G. (1979). Accurate reflection or systematic distortion? A reply to Block, Weiss, and ThorneJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1075-1084.
32.
Terpstra, D.E. (1982). Evaluating selected organizational development interventions: The state of the artGroup & Organization Studies, 7, 402-417.
33.
Wilson, S. (1978). Informal groups: An introductionEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
34.
Wish, M. (1976). Comparisons among multidimensional structures of interpersonal relationsMultivariate Behavioral Research , 11, 297-324.
35.
Wundt, W. (1896). Outlines of psychologyLeipzig : Wilhelm Englemann.
