Quantitative Evaluation of Psycho-Social Phenomena in Small Groups
Certain psycho-social trends have been examined in three analytically conducted therapeutic groups by means of questionnaire and/or ranking tests given to the group patients. The patients were required to estimate, by introspective or objective observation, either their own feelings or phenomena exhibited by others.

The scores of the patients' estimates were arranged in matrix form. From these matrices three types of group trends could be derived by means of an additive procedure:

1. Public trends arising out of the overt behaviour of the patients in their role as group members. Two such trends were examined— public popularity and public dominance.

2. Interpersonal trends which emerge from the sociometric network of person-to-person relationships. The trend examined was termed interpersonal popularity.

3. Personal trends indicating the distribution of certain interpersonal traits among the various group members. The trend examined was termed “friendly” bias.

Methods have been described of correcting the trend scores in order to eliminate some of the distortions caused by other intra-group influences and by the inter-group differences of size of membership. In this way it was possible to form aggregate group trends comprising the members of all three groups.

The test reliabilities of the various group trends were assessed. The reliability coefficients were: .91 for public popularity, .92 for public dominance, .95 for interpersonal popularity, and .64 for “friendly” bias.

The observer reliability for trends based on introspective observation (interpersonal popularity and “friendly” bias) depended on the sincerity of the patients' co-operation, which was judged to have been of a fairly satisfactory order.

To estimate the observer reliability and validity for trends based on objective observation (public popularity and public dominance) a coefficient W' was introduced which was modelled on Kendall's coefficient W of concordance. The average coefficients W for our three groups were .59 for public popularity and .76 for public dominance. These values were accepted as satisfactory as far as the general distribution of the trends was concerned, but not with regard to the validity of the status of individual patients. Occasionally, however, it is possible to attribute fairly high validity to the status of individual patients at either extreme of the trends of public popularity and dominance.

In the scales of interpersonal popularity the average coefficient W' was, as expected, significantly lower, and was found to be .29. This value was, however, still significant, indicating thereby that the aggregate scale of interpersonal popularity reflected a definite group trend.

Applied to the personal group trend of “friendly” bias the coefficient W is not a criterion of concordance, but one of consistency with which differential attitudes are adopted by the group members. The average coefficient W' was also highly significant, and therefore indicated definite differences in personal attitudes.

The scales of the two public trends could be accepted as fairly valid estimates of the general distribution of popularity and dominance in the groups.

The scale of interpersonal popularity was found not to be valid because of its high correlation with public popularity. This suggested that the patients, in assessing their friendliness towards fellow group members, were influenced by the status of public popularity the other members had achieved. It also showed that the additive procedure by which the scale of interpersonal popularity was derived accentuated the more concordant public trend.

The scale of “friendly” bias is “self-scored” in contrast to the “group-scored” scales of public and interpersonal trends; that is, each component value of the scale is derived from the scores of a single patient only. The scale has no validity as an indicator of overt friendliness; it refers to dereistic desires rather than exhibited attitudes. The hypothesis was advanced that the scale will be found to be related to two neurotic tendencies—obsessional fear of one's own aggressiveness, and narcissistic insecurity giving rise to desires of either ingratiation or emotional independence.

The correlation between public popularity and dominance was + .57. Some patients deviated conspicuously from this general correlation trend. It was noticed that, among these deviant patients, those who had a discrepantly high dominance position were likely to terminate their group treatment prematurely. Deviant patients, on the other hand, whose popularity was discrepantly high were likely to belong to the type of narcissistically insecure person with reactive desires for ingratiation, i.e., to stand high on the scale of “friendly” bias.

Insight into one's own status of dominance and popularity was also examined. It seems that, in general, patients are fairly well aware of their dominance in the group, but not of their popularity. This poor insight into one's popularity is assumed to be apparent rather than real. Patients are bound to notice the overt signs in the attitude of the group which indicate the popularity not only of others but also of themselves. In their own cases the patients, however, misinterpret the overt signs.

The correlation between “friendly” bias and public popularity may be different in the two sexes, being negative in men and positive in women. This significance of this finding is, however, not fully established yet.