Nominations, Ratings, and the Dimensions of Sociometric Status

In 1944, U. Bronfenbrenner remarked on the need for a two-dimensional model of sociometric status. The low value of the correlation between the variables liking and disliking-assumed basic dimensions of sociometric status-is often cited as evidence for the correctness of Bronfenbrenner’ssuggestion....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of behavioral development 1997-03, Vol.21 (1), p.179-199
Main Authors: Maassen, Gerard H., van der Linden, Jos L., Akkermans, Wies
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biological and medical sciences
Children
Dimensions
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Methodology (Data Collection)
Nominations
Peer Relations
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Psychometrics. Sociometry
Rating
Ratings
Social Acceptance
Social psychology
Social Status
Sociometric Analysis
Sociometric status
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In 1944, U. Bronfenbrenner remarked on the need for a two-dimensional model of sociometric status. The low value of the correlation between the variables liking and disliking-assumed basic dimensions of sociometric status-is often cited as evidence for the correctness of Bronfenbrenner’ssuggestion. Sociometric status is derived from a coalescence of judgements at the individual level. In this article we argue that score attribution at this level (where one group member assesses another) is one-dimensional along the liking-disliking continuum. Two-dimensionality of sociometric status arises at the group level. However, we also show that at this level liking and disliking are not two distinct dimensions, but the poles of just one, the other being visibility (or impact). If the one-dimensional model of liking score attribution on the individual level is accepted, the obvious thing to do is to instruct respondents accordingly. Rating scales are suitable for this. The rating-scale methods we suggested in previous publications (e.g. Maassen, Akkermans, & van der Linden, 1996) are in keeping with this argument. Moreover, these methods may be recommended for their reliability, validity and for the variety of research designs to which they can be applied.
ISSN:0165-0254
1464-0651
DOI:10.1080/016502597385045