Adam Blatner, M.D.

This paper appeared in: The Group Psychologist (the online journal of the Society of Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy---a newsletter of Division 49 of the American Psychological Association): Part 1, subtitled "Theoretical Underpinnings," was in Volume 20, No. 2., pp 9-11, July 2010; part 2, subtitled Practical Applications in Group Psychotherapy, was in Volume 20,  No.3, pp 9-11, November, 2010.
       For more on sociometry, see on this website other papers such as (1)  Exploring Interpersonal Preference  ; (2) Exploring Your Own Connectedness through Sociometry ; (3) Tele: The Dynamics of Rapport;  (4) Further Notes on Sociometry  ; (5) A Bibliography of Writings on Sociometry  ;
    And since role theory is also related to all this, browse on the table of contents of papers for various webpage articles about roles, role analysis, and so forth.

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.


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.


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.


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:

    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:

   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
               Further Comments on Sociometry.