EFFECTS OF SOCIOMETRIC STATUS ON INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION

CHITOSHI ARARAGI

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.21.105

CHITOSHI ARARAGI

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1979 Volume 21 Issue 3 Pages 105-113

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.21.105

Details

Published: December 30, 1979 Received: May 24, 1978 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: TITLE Details: Wrong : EFFECTS OF SOCIONIETRIC STATUS ON INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION
Right : EFFECTS OF SOCIOMETRIC STATUS ON INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : The present study was designed to assess whether or not the effect of agreement in the P-O-Q triad in non-laboratory situations is influenced by the level of sociometric status each person holds. One hundred and twenty-two fifth graders served as subjects, who were divided into three (High, Middle, & Low) groups in terms of their sociometric status. The observed frequencies of each of the cognitively balanced configurations were used as the measure of balance. The agreement effect was found more frequently when the subjective sign configuration of R₃ (O-Q relation as perceived by P) coincided with the objective sign configuration of R₃ (real O-Q relation) than when it did not. When the two R₃ configurations coincided, the higher the sociometric status each subject held, the more frequent was the agreement effect. But when they did not coincide, the agreement effect was not attributed to the level of sociometric status each subject held. These results indicate that the higher the sociometric status each subject holds, the more likely is the agreement effect to occur.
Right : The present study was designed to assess whether or not the effect of agreement in the P-O-Q triad in non-laboratory situations is influenced by the level of sociometric status each person holds. One hundred and twenty-two fifth graders served as subjects, who were divided into three (High, Middle, & Low) groups in terms of their sociometric status. The observed frequencies of each of the cognitively balanced configurations were used as the measure of balance. The agreement effect was found more frequently when the subjective sign configuration of R₃ (O-Q relation as perceived by P) coincided with the objective sign configuration of R₃ (real O-Q relation) than when it did not. When the two R₃ configurations coincided, the higher the sociometric status each subject held, the more frequent was the agreement effect. But when they did not coincide, the agreement effect was not attributed to the level of sociometric status each subject held. These results indicate that the higher the sociometric status each subject holds, the more likely is the agreement effect to occur.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : ARARACI, C. 1977 A comparison of the balance mechanism and the agreement mechanism in the concrete interpersonal situation. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 48, 266-270. (In Japanese with English summary)
ARARAGI, C., & KANO, S. 1975 A comparison between person perception system and event perception system. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 98-107. (In Japanese with English summary)
BROXTON, J. A. 1963 A test of interpersonal attraction predictions derived from balance theory. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 394-397.
FESTINGER, L., & HUTTE, H. A. 1954 An experimental investigation of the effect of unstable interpersonal relations in the group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 513-522.
FUJINO, F. 1970 A study on cognitive balance theory: The effect of agreement. Memories of the Faculty of Education, Kumamoto University, 18, 124-131. (In Japanese with English abstract)
HARARY. F. 1959 On the measurement of structural balance. Behavioral Science, 4, 316-323.
FIEIDER, F. 1946 Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
HEIDER, F. 1958 The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
HOROWITZ, M. W., LYONS, J., & PERLMUTTER, H. V. 1951 Induction of forces in discussion groups. Human Relations, 4, 57-76.
INSKO, C. A., SONGER, E., & MCGARVEY, W. 1974 Balance, positivity, and agreement in the Jordan Paradigm: A defense of balance theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 53-83.
JORDAN, N. 1953 Behavioral forces that are a function of attitudes and of cognitive organization. Human Relations, 6, 273-287.
NEWCOMB, T. M. 1963 Stabilities underlying changes in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 376-386.
OHASHI, M. 1956 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (II): Perception of the other person's attitude towards the third person. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 27, 193-203.(In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1958 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (III): Factor of group-structuralization in relation perception. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 29, 2 35-245. (In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1962 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (V): A replication study with a somewhat different procedure. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 32, 395-404. (In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1964 Sociometric choice behavior and interpersonal perception in triad. Japanese Psychological Research, 6, 72-87.
RODRIGUES, A. 1965 On the differential effects of some parameters of balance. Journal of Psychology, 61, 241-250.
RODRIGUES, A. 1967 Effects of balance, positivity and agreement in triadic social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 472-476.
RODRIGUES, A. 1968 The biasing effect of agreement in balanced and imbalanced triads. Journal of Personality,, 36, 138-153.
ROSENBERG, M. J., & ABELSON, R. P. 1960 An analysis of cognitive balancing. In M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson, & J. W. Brehm (Eds.), .Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components. New Haven: Yale University Press.
TAGIORI, R., BRUNER, J. S., & KOGAN, N. 1955 Estimating the chance expectancies of diadir relationships within a group. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 122-131.
TAYLOR, H. F. 1968 Balance, tension and tension release in the two-person group. Human Relations, 21, 59-74.
ZAJONG, R. B., & SHERMAN, S. J. 1967 Structural balance and the induction of relations. Journal of Personality, 35, 635-650.

Right : ARARAGI, C. 1977 A comparison of the balance mechanism and the agreement mechanism in the concrete interpersonal situation. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 48, 266-270.(In Japanesewith English summary)
ARARAGI, C., & KANO, S. 1975 A comparison between person perception system and event perception system. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 98-107.(In Japanese with English summary)
BROXTON, J. A. 1963 A test of interpersonal attraction predictions derived from balance theory.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 394-397.
FESTINOER, L., & HUTTE, H. A. 1954 An experimental investigation of the effect of unstable interpersonal relations in the group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 513-522.
FUJJNO, F. 1970 A study on cognitive balance theory: The effect of agreement. Memories of the Faculty of Education, Kumamoto University, 18, 124-131.(In Japanese with English abstract)
HARARY, F. 1959 On the measurement of structural balance. Behavioral Science, 4, 316-323.
HEIDER, F. 1946 Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
HEIDER, F. 1958 The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
HOROWITZ, M. W., LYONS, J., & PERLMUTTER, H. V. 1951 Induction of forces in discussion groups. Human Relations, 4, 57-76.
INSKO, C. A., SONGER, E., & MCGARVEY, W. 1974 Balance, positivity, and agreement in the Jordan Paradigm: A defense of balance theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 53-83.
JORDAN, N. 1953 Behavioral forces that are a function of attitudes and of cognitive organization. Human Relations, 6, 273-287.
NEWCOMB, T. M. 1963 Stabilities underlying changes in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 376-386.
OHASHI, M. 1956 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (II): Perception of the other person's attitude towards the third person. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 27, 193-203. (In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1958 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (III): Factor of group-structuralization in relation perception. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 29, 235-245. (In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1962 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (V): A replication study with a somewhat different procedure. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 32, 395-404.(In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1964 Sociomctric choice behavior and interpersonal perception in triad. Japanese Psychological Research, 6, 72-87.
RODRIGUES, A. 1965 On the differential effects of some parameters of balance. Journal of Psychology, 61, 241-250.
RODRIGUES, A. 1967 Effects of balance, positivity and agreement in triadic social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Pcychology, 5, 472-476.
RODRIGUES, A. 1968 The biasing effect of agreement in balanced and imbalanced triack. Journal of Personality, 36, 138-153.
ROSENBERG, M. J., & ABELSON, R. P.1960 An analysis of cognitive balancing. In M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson, & J. W. Brehm (Eds.),. Attitude organization and change:. An analysis of concisiency among atliiwie components. New Haven: Vale University Press.
TAGIURI, R., BRUNER, J. S., & KOGAN, N. 1955 Estimating the chance expectancies of diadic relationships within a group. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 122-131.
TAYLOR, H. F. 1968 Balance, tension and tension release in the two-person group. Human Relations, 21, 59-74.
ZAJONC, R. B., & SHERMAN, S. J. 1967 Structural balance and the induction of relations. Journal of Personality, 35, 635-650.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : ARARAGI, C. 1977 A comparison of the balance mechanism and the agreement mechanism in the concrete interpersonal situation. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 48, 266-270.(In Japanesewith English summary)
ARARAGI, C., & KANO, S. 1975 A comparison between person perception system and event perception system. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 98-107.(In Japanese with English summary)
BROXTON, J. A. 1963 A test of interpersonal attraction predictions derived from balance theory.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 394-397.
FESTINOER, L., & HUTTE, H. A. 1954 An experimental investigation of the effect of unstable interpersonal relations in the group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 513-522.
FUJJNO, F. 1970 A study on cognitive balance theory: The effect of agreement. Memories of the Faculty of Education, Kumamoto University, 18, 124-131.(In Japanese with English abstract)
HARARY, F. 1959 On the measurement of structural balance. Behavioral Science, 4, 316-323.
HEIDER, F. 1946 Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
HEIDER, F. 1958 The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
HOROWITZ, M. W., LYONS, J., & PERLMUTTER, H. V. 1951 Induction of forces in discussion groups. Human Relations, 4, 57-76.
INSKO, C. A., SONGER, E., & MCGARVEY, W. 1974 Balance, positivity, and agreement in the Jordan Paradigm: A defense of balance theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 53-83.
JORDAN, N. 1953 Behavioral forces that are a function of attitudes and of cognitive organization. Human Relations, 6, 273-287.
NEWCOMB, T. M. 1963 Stabilities underlying changes in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 376-386.
OHASHI, M. 1956 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (II): Perception of the other person's attitude towards the third person. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 27, 193-203. (In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1958 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (III): Factor of group-structuralization in relation perception. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 29, 235-245. (In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1962 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (V): A replication study with a somewhat different procedure. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 32, 395-404.(In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1964 Sociomctric choice behavior and interpersonal perception in triad. Japanese Psychological Research, 6, 72-87.
RODRIGUES, A. 1965 On the differential effects of some parameters of balance. Journal of Psychology, 61, 241-250.
RODRIGUES, A. 1967 Effects of balance, positivity and agreement in triadic social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Pcychology, 5, 472-476.
RODRIGUES, A. 1968 The biasing effect of agreement in balanced and imbalanced triack. Journal of Personality, 36, 138-153.
ROSENBERG, M. J., & ABELSON, R. P.1960 An analysis of cognitive balancing. In M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson, & J. W. Brehm (Eds.),. Attitude organization and change:. An analysis of concisiency among atliiwie components. New Haven: Vale University Press.
TAGIURI, R., BRUNER, J. S., & KOGAN, N. 1955 Estimating the chance expectancies of diadic relationships within a group. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 122-131.
TAYLOR, H. F. 1968 Balance, tension and tension release in the two-person group. Human Relations, 21, 59-74.
ZAJONC, R. B., & SHERMAN, S. J. 1967 Structural balance and the induction of relations. Journal of Personality, 35, 635-650.

Right : ARARAGI, C. 1977 A comparison of the balance mechanism and the agreement mechanism in the concrete interpersonal situation. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 48, 266-270.(In Japanese with English summary)
ARARAGI, C., & KANO, S. 1975 A comparison between person perception system and event perception system. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 98-107.(In Japanese with English summary)
BROXTON, J. A. 1963 A test of interpersonal attraction predictions derived from balance theory. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 394-397.
FESTINGER, L., & HUTTE, H. A. 1954 An experimental investigation of the effect of unstable interpersonal relations in the group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 513-522.
FUJINO, F. 1970 A study on cognitive balance theory: The effect of agreement. Memories of the Faculty of Education, Kumamoto University, 18, 124-131.(In Japanese with English abstract)
HARARY, F. 1959 On the measurement of structural balance. Behavioral Science, 4, 316-323.
HEIDER, F. 1946 Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
HEIDER, F. 1958 The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
HOROWITZ, M. W., LYONS, J., & PERLMUTTER, H. V. 1951 Induction of forces in discussion groups. Human Relations, 4, 57-76.
INSKO, C. A., SONGER, E., & McGARVEY, W. 1974 Balance, positivity, and agreement in the Jordan Paradigm: A defense of balance theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 53-83.
JORDAN, N. 1953 Behavioral forces that are a function of attitudes and of cognitive organization. Human Relations, 6, 273-287.
NEWCOMB, T. M. 1963 Stabilities underlying changes in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 376-386.
OHASHI, M. 1956 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (II): Perception of the other person's attitude towards the third person. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 27, 193-203.(In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1958 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (III): Factor of group-structuralization in relation perception. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 29, 235-245.(In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1962 Studies on choice behavior and interpersonal perception (V): A replication study with a somewhat different procedure. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 32, 395-404.(In Japanese with English abstract)
OHASHI, M. 1964 Sociometric choice behavior and interpersonal perception in triad. Japanese Psychological Research, 6, 72-87.
RODRIGUES, A. 1965 On the differential effects of some parameters of balance. Journal of Psychology, 61, 241-250.
RODRIGUES, A. 1967 Effects of balance, positivity and agreement in triadic social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 472-476.
RODRIGUES, A. 1968 The biasing effect of agreement in balanced and imbalanced triads. Journal of Personality, 36, 138-153.
ROSENBERG, M. J., & ABELSON, R. P.1960 An analysis of cognitive balancing. In M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P.Abelson, & J. W. Brehm (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components. New Haven: Yale University Press.
TAGIURI, R., BRUNER, J. S., & KOGAN, N. 1955 Estimating the chance expectancies of diadic relationships within a group. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 122-131.
TAYLOR, H. F. 1968 Balance, tension and tension release in the two-person group. Human Relations, 21, 59-74.
ZAJONC, R. B., & SHERMAN, S. J. 1967 Structural balance and the induction of relations. Journal of Personality, 35, 635-650.

Abstract

The present study was designed to assess whether or not the effect of agreement in the P-O-Q triad in non-laboratory situations is influenced by the level of sociometric status each person holds. One hundred and twenty-two fifth graders served as subjects, who were divided into three (High, Middle, & Low) groups in terms of their sociometric status. The observed frequencies of each of the cognitively balanced configurations were used as the measure of balance. The agreement effect was found more frequently when the subjective sign configuration of R₃ (O-Q relation as perceived by P) coincided with the objective sign configuration of R₃ (real O-Q relation) than when it did not. When the two R₃ configurations coincided, the higher the sociometric status each subject held, the more frequent was the agreement effect. But when they did not coincide, the agreement effect was not attributed to the level of sociometric status each subject held. These results indicate that the higher the sociometric status each subject holds, the more likely is the agreement effect to occur.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!