Contemporary Family Therapy

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 183–195 | Cite as

What are Genosociograms and How Can We Generate, Analyze, and Interpret them? Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on the Network of Relationships

Original Paper

Abstract

This article deals with the possible blending of genograms and sociograms into a unified and variable tool for the collection, visualization, and analysis of relationship contexts. Shared perspectives on personal relationships by genograms and sociograms are highlighted and integrative concepts from the literature are presented. My proposal is, then, to conceptualize both family and non-family relations as genosociograms and to analyze them as egocentric (personal) networks of relationships. This is illustrated by the example of the (non-clinical) case of the genosociogram of a student. The network analysis of her genosociogram reveals several interesting insights into the differential centrality of people in her network, into differences of the relationship structure across different network sectors, and into the particular relationship constellations of her network members. The consequences and chances of genosociograms for clinical casework and systemic theorizing are discussed in the concluding section of the article.

Keywords

Genogram Sociogram Ego-centered networks Social network analysis 

References

  1. Antonucci, T. C. (2001). Social relations: An examination of social networks, social support, and sense of control. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (5th ed., pp. 427–453). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Asendorpf, J. B., & Banse, R. (2000). Psychologie der Beziehung. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  3. Beavers, R., & Hampson, R. B. (2000). The beavers systems model of family functioning. Journal of Family Therapy, 22(2), 128–143. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.00143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgatti, S. P. (2006). E-NET software for the analysis of ego-network data. Needham: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  5. Bott, E. (1957). Family and social network. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  6. Buer, F. (1999). Morenos therapeutische Philosophie: zu den Grundideen von Psychodrama und Soziometrie. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cain, D. J., & Seeman, J. (Eds.). (2002). Humanistic psychotherapies: Handbook of research and practice. Washington, D.C.: APA. doi:10.1037/10439-000.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, W. L. (2010). The comparative study of interpersonal relationships. Family Science, 1(1), 37–47. doi:10.1080/19424620903392614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dayton, T. (2005). The living stage: A step-by-step guide to psychodrama, sociometry and experiential group therapy. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.Google Scholar
  11. Dollase, R. (2011). Die Grundlagen der Soziometrie—früher und heute. Zeitschrift für Psychodrama und Soziometrie, 10(2), 175–190. doi:10.1007/s11620-011-0107-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domínguez, S., & Hollstein, B. (Eds.). (2014). Mixed methods social network research: Design and applications. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dumont, R. H. (2008). Drawing a family map: An experiential tool for engaging children in family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 30(3), 247–259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2008.00429.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
  15. Geddes, M., & Medway, J. (1977). The symbolic drawing of the family life space. Family Process, 16(2), 219–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Geßner, C. (2007). Paare aus der Herkunftsfamilien-Perspektive: Eine empirische Studie zur Entwicklung und Erprobung eines Herkunftsfamilieninterviews (HFI) im Kontext von Partnerschaftsbeziehungen. Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
  17. Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (Eds.). (2000). Close relationships: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Hennig, M. (2006). Individuen und ihre sozialen Beziehungen. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Hrabal, V. (2010). Soziometrische rating-methode (SORAT-M). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  20. Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2005). Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science, 16(4), 359–371. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kadushin, C. (2011). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles and social support. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. J. Brim (Eds.), Life span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 253–286). New York: Academy Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kalish, Y., & Robins, G. (2005). Psychological predispositions and network structure: The relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social Networks, 28, 56–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keim, S. (2011). Social networks and family formation processes: Young adults’ decision making about parenthood. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  26. Keul, A. G. (1993). Soziales Netzwerk—System ohne Theorie. In A.-R. Laireiter (Ed.), Soziales Netzwerk und soziale Unterstützung: Konzepte, Methoden, Befunde (pp. 45–54). Bern: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
  27. Kipper, D. A. (2011). Empirische Studien zur Spontaneität: Eine Überprüfung. Zeitschrift für Psychodrama und Soziometrie, 10(Supplement 1), 21–34. doi:10.1007/s11620-011-0130-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laireiter, A.-R. (2009). Soziales Netzwerk und soziale Unterstützung. In K. Lenz & F. Nestmann (Eds.), Handbuch persönliche Beziehungen (pp. 75–99). Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  29. Lamkin, J., Clifton, A., Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2014). An examination of the perceptions of social network characteristics associated with grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(2), 137–145. doi:10.1037/per0000024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leitner, A., Liegl, G., Märtens, M., Höfner, C., & Koschier, A. (2008). Die Veränderung sozialer Netzwerke duch Einzelpsychotherapie aus PatientInnensicht. Psychologische Medizin, 4, 17–25.Google Scholar
  31. Llamas, R., Pattison, E. M., & Hurd, G. (1981). Social networks: A link between psychiatric epidemiology and community mental health. International Journal of Family Therapy, 3(3), 180–192. doi:10.1007/bf00923974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marineau, R. F. (2011). Die Integration von Morenos Erbe. Zeitschrift für Psychodrama und Soziometrie, 10(1), 35–44. doi:10.1007/s11620-011-0134-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGoldrick, M., Gerson, R., & Petry, S. (2008). Genograms: Assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  34. Ningel, R., & Funke, W. (Eds.). (1995). Soziale Netze in der Praxis. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  35. Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A. (Eds.). (2006). Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  36. Olson, D. (2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model: Validation study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37(1), 64–80. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00175.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Otto, U., & Bauer, P. (Eds.). (2005). Mit Netzwerken professionell zusammenarbeiten. 2 Bände. Tübingen: DGVT-Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Pattison, E. M. (1981). Introduction: The social network paradigm. International Journal of Family Therapy, 3(4), 241–245. doi:10.1007/bf00924351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Platt, L. F. (2008). The family genogramm interview: Reliability and validity of a new interview protocol. Dissertation. Pennsylvania State: University.Google Scholar
  40. Platt, L. F., & Skowron, E. A. (2013). The family genogram interview: Reliability and validity of a new interview protocol. The Family Journal, 21(1), 35–45. doi:10.1177/1066480712456817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Polt, W., & Rimser, M. (2006). Aufstellungen mit dem Systembrett. Interventionen für Coaching, Beratung und Therapie. Münster: Ökotopia.Google Scholar
  42. Retzlaff, R. (2013). Development of family therapy and systemic therapy in Germany. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 35(2), 349–363. doi:10.1007/s10591-013-9267-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Röhrle, B., & Laireiter, A.-R. (2009). Soziale Unterstützung und Psychotherapie. Tübingen: DGVT.Google Scholar
  44. Ron, K. (1996). Open live supervision in family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 18(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santos, J. D., & Levitt, M. J. (2007). Intergenerational relations with in-laws in the context of the social convoy: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 827–843. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00539.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schnell, R., Hill, P. B., & Esser, H. (1999). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (6th ed.). München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  47. Schönhuth, M., Gamper, M., Kronenwett, M., & Stark, M. (Eds.). (2013). Visuelle Netzwerkforschung: Qualitative, quantitative und partizipative Zugänge. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  48. Schützenberger, A. A. (2007). Oh, meine Ahnen! Wie das Leben unserer Vorfahren in uns wiederkehrt (5th ed.). Weinheim: Carl Auer.Google Scholar
  49. Stevens, P., Watts, R. E., & Carlson, J. (2002). Modernizing the genogram: Solutions and constructions. In R. E. Watts (Ed.), Techniques in marriage and family counseling (Vol. 2, pp. 57–61). Alexandria, VA: ACA.Google Scholar
  50. Stokman, F. N. (2001). Networks: Social. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (pp. 10511–10516). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  51. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Trappmann, M., Hummell, H. J., & Sodeur, W. (2005). Strukturanalyse sozialer Netzwerke: Konzepte, Modelle, Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health. Models, methods, and applications. Oxford: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vangelisti, A. L., & Perlman, D. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.2277/0521826179.Google Scholar
  55. Vitale, M. A. F. (2001). Das Genodrama: Das Psychodrama mit Genogrammen in der Paartherapie. In K. Jensen (Ed.), Psychotherapie psychodramatisch. Berichte aus 5 Ländern (pp. 37–50). Aachen: Shaker.Google Scholar
  56. Vitale, M. A. F. (2006). Genodrama: Psychodramatic work with genograms in couple therapy. In Z. Figusch (Ed.), Sambadrama: The arena of Brazilian psychodrama (pp. 175–189). London: Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Von Ameln, F., Gerstmann, R., & Kramer, J. (2009). Psychodrama (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wassermann, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wendt, V., Diewald, M., & Lang, F. R. (2008). Interpendenzen zwischen verwandtschaftlichen und beruflichen Beziehungs-Netzwerken (IDUN). Entwicklung eines sparsamen Netzwerkinstrumentes und erste Ergebnisse. In M. Feldhaus & J. Huinink (Eds.), Neuere Entwicklungen in der Beziehungs-und Familienforschung: Vorstudien zum Beziehungs-und Familienentwicklungspanel (PAIRFAM) (pp. 457–479). Würzburg: Ergon.Google Scholar
  60. Widmer, E. D., Giudici, F., Le Goff, J.-M., & Pollien, A. (2009). From support to control: A configurational perspective on conjugal quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(13), 437–448. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00611.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Widmer, E. D., & La Farga, L.-A. (2000). Family networks: A sociometric method to study relationships in families. Field Methods, 12(2), 108–128. doi:10.1177/1525822X0001200202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wrzus, C., Hänel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Social network changes and life events across the life span: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 53–80. doi:10.1037/a0028601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Wrzus, C., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2012). The interdependence of horizontal family relationships and friendships relates to higher well-being. Personal Relationships, 19(3), 465–482. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01373.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOtto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations