As we considered in the preceding chapter, the meaning of activity settings may well be different for each participant. This insight brings us abruptly to the most crucial of activity setting elements: Who are the appropriate sources of influence? That is, who are the appropriate participants in intentionally designed activity settings for influence and change? Because so many elements in Delta Theory are congruent with unreflective actions of natural life – so-called common sense – it is almost reflexive for humans in action to pose the question, “Who can I get to influence John?” This is the basic form of the question that Agents address to themselves as they ponder plans for influence.

Agents’ answers to that self-posed question may be grouped into three structural types. The first is: “I myself am the person most able directly to influence John.” The second answer is: “Those most able directly to influence John are James, Y, and Z. My task as Agent is to indirectly influence John by directly influencing James and/or Y and/or Z.” The third structural type answer is: “Present relationships are insufficient to influence John favorably. The entire vectored field of influence in which he operates must be adjusted by my indirect influence.” I label these three structure types of psychosocial organization dyadic, triadic, and field vectored.