Fundamental interpersonal relations orientation

Last updated

Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) is a theory of interpersonal relations, introduced by William Schutz in 1958. This theory mainly explains the interpersonal interactions of a local group of people. The theory is based on the belief that when people get together in a group, there are three main interpersonal needs they are looking to obtain – affection/openness, control and inclusion. Schutz developed a measuring instrument that contains six scales of nine-item questions, and this became version B (for "Behavior"). This technique was created to measure how group members feel when it comes to inclusion, control, and affection/openness or to be able to get feedback from people in a group.

Contents

Description

These categories measure how much interaction a person wants in the areas of socializing, leadership and responsibilities, and more intimate personal relations. FIRO-B was created, based on this theory, as a measurement instrument with scales that assess the behavioral aspects of the three dimensions. Scores are graded from 0–9 in scales of expressed and wanted behavior, which define how much a person expresses to others, and how much he wants from others. Schutz believed that FIRO scores in themselves were not terminal, and can and do change, and did not encourage typology; however, the four temperaments were eventually mapped to the scales of the scoring system, which led to the creation of a theory of five temperaments.

Schutz himself discussed the impact of extreme behavior in the areas of inclusion, control, and openness as indicated by scores on the FIRO-B (and the later Element-B). For each area of interpersonal need the following three types of behavior would be evident: (1) deficient, (2) excessive, and (3) ideal. Deficient was defined as indicating that an individual was not trying to directly satisfy the need. Excessive was defined as indicating that an individual was constantly trying to satisfy the need. Ideal referred to satisfaction of the need. From this, he identified the following types:

Schutz composed a "Matrix of Relevant Interpersonal Data", which he called "The Elephant". [1] Each area consisted of a smaller matrix of "act" and "feel" by "Self to Other" (Action), "Other to Self" (Reaction), and "Self to Self".

"Act" and "Feel" divided the rows, which were:
"Desired Interpersonal Relations (Needs)", which denoted "satisfactory relations" in each area;
"Ideal Interpersonal Relations" is what would correspond to "moderate" expressed and wanted scores;
"Anxious Interpersonal Relations" was subdivided into rows of "Too much activity" (covering high expressed scores) and "Too little activity" (covering low expressed scores); both being divided into "Act" and "feel".
The last row was "Pathological Interpersonal relations", which was divided into "too much" and "too little", yielding:
"Psychotic (Schizophrenia)" as Too Little/Inclusion; (There was no "Too Much/Inclusion")
"Obsessive-compulsive" as Too Much/Control and "Psychopath" as Too Little/Control; and
"Neurotic" as too much and too little Affection.

"Self-to other (action)" corresponded to the expressed dimension, and "Other to self (Reaction)" was the basis for the wanted dimension (though it is phrased in terms of what people do, rather than what we want them to do, which would be similar to the later Element B). We thus end up with the six dimensions as follows:

Expressed Inclusion (eI): "I initiate interaction with others" (High: "outstanding"; low "shy")
Wanted Inclusion (wI): "I want to be Included" (High: "friendly"; low: "aloof")
expressed Control (eC): "I try to control others" (High: "authoritarian"; low: "absent-minded")
Wanted Control (wC): "I want to be controlled" (High: "submissive"; low: "rebellious")
Expressed Affection (eA): "I try to be close and personal" (High: "empathetic"; low: "cold")
Wanted Affection (wA): "I want others to be close and personal with me" (High: "needy"; low: "defensive")

Putting them together, Schutz came up with fifteen "Descriptive Schema and appropriate terminology for each Interpersonal Need Area": [2]

ScoreInclusionControlAffection
Low e and wShy
Aloof
Absent-minded
Rebellious
Cold
Defensive
high e and wOutstanding
Friendly
Authoritarian
Submissive
Empathetic
Needy
High e but low wOutstanding
Aloof
Authoritarian
Rebellious
Empathetic
Defensive
low e but high wShy
Friendly
Absent-minded
Submissive
Cold
Needy
moderate e and wSocialDemocratPersonal

In 1977, a clinical psychologist who worked with FIRO-B, Dr. Leo Ryan, produced maps of the scores for each area, called "locator charts", and assigned names for all of the score ranges in his Clinical Interpretation of The FIRO-B:

ScoreInclusionControlAffectionTemperament by APS (all 3 areas)
Low e and wThe LonerThe RebelThe PessimistMelancholy
moderate e, low w"Now You See Him, Now You Don't" Tendencies Self-Confident "Image of Intimacy" TendencyPhlegmatic Melancholy / Phlegmatic Choleric
High e, low wNow You See Him, Now You Don'tMission ImpossibleImage/(Mask) of Intimacy Choleric
high e, moderate wThe Conversationalist"Mission Impossible" with Narcissistic TendenciesLiving Up To Expectations Sanguine Phlegmatic / Choleric Phlegmatic
high e and wPeople Gatherer (formerly, "Where are the People?")Dependent-Independent conflictThe Optimist Sanguine
moderate e, high wHidden InhibitionsLet's Take a BreakCautious Lover In DisguisePhlegmatic Supine / Phlegmatic Sanguine
low e, high wInhibited IndividualOpenly Dependent Person; (w=6: Loyal Lieutenant)Cautious LoverSupine
low e, moderate wCautious ExpectationThe CheckerCareful ModerationSupine Phlegmatic / Melancholy Phlegmatic
moderate e and wSocial FlexibilityThe MatcherWarm Individual/The Golden MeanPhlegmatic

However, to continue not to encourage typology, the names (which were for clinical interpretation primarily) are generally not used, and Element-B test results usually total the E, W, I, C and O scores individually. In the derivative "five temperament" system, the different scores are grouped into their corresponding temperaments, and considered inborn types. One key difference is in the "high wanted" scores in the area of Control. A distinction is made between men and women, with men being "dependent", and women, rather than really being dependent, only being "tolerant" of control by others. This is attributed to "the stereotypical role of women in Western Culture", where they were often dependent, and have simply learned to tolerate control from others. This again, reflects FIRO's belief that these scores reflect learned behavior. In five temperament theory, no such distinction between the sexes is recognized, and high wanted scores in Control are seen as an inborn dependency need in both sexes.

Compatibility Theory

Another part of the theory is "compatibility theory", which features the roles of originator, reciprocal, and interchange. [3]

Originator compatibility, involves possible clashes between expressed and wanted behaviors. The example given, is two people with high eC and low wC (aka "Mission Impossible" or "Autocrat Rebellious"). They: "will both want to originate the behaviors associated with the Control needs, and neither will want to receive those behaviors. Both persons will want to set the agenda, take responsibility, and direct and structure the actions of others; neither will feel comfortable taking direction. The result could be competition or even conflict." [3]

Reciprocal compatibility is (from another example given from Control), where high eC with low wC interacts with the opposite: low eC with high wC ("Openly Dependent", "Loyal Lieutenant", or "Abdicrat Submissive").

"there is a high degree of reciprocal compatibility because... one will take charge; the other will be happy to let him or her assume the responsibility." [3]

Interchange compatibility measures how much individuals share the same need strengths. The example is two people with both high eA and wA ("Optimist" or "Overpersonal Personal-compliant"). They "will be compatible because both will see Affection behaviors as the basis of the relationship, and they will engage each other around Affection needs." [3] (i.e. freely give and receive).

Further development

During the 1970s, Schutz revised and expanded FIRO theory and developed additional instruments [4] [5] for measuring the new aspects of the theory, including Element B: Behavior (an improved version of FIRO-B); Element F: Feelings; Element S: Self; Element W: Work Relations; Element C: Close Relations; Element P: Parental Relationships; and Element O: Organizational Climate. Since 1984, these instruments have been known collectively as Elements of Awareness. Element B differs in expanding the definitions of Inclusion, Control, and Affection (renamed "Openness"), into an additional six scores to measure how much a person wants to include, control, and be close to others, and how much other people include, control, and like to be close to the client. "Expressed" is renamed "See" (current behaviors) while "Want" remains desired behaviors. Each of the three areas is split into "Do" (initiating interaction with others) and "Get" (the level received from others). Differences between See and Want scores indicate levels of dissatisfaction. [6]

The original FIRO-B was sold to CPP, Inc. (now The Myers-Briggs Company [7] ), which also publishes the MBTI assessment, and FIRO Element B is owned by Business Consultants Network, Inc.

A third FIRO system, called FIRO-Space™ is being developed by Dr. Henry L. Thompson who developed the second one. [8]

Correlations with MBTI

In a 1976 survey of seventy-five of the most widely used training instruments, the FIRO-B was found to be the most generally usable instrument in training. [9] The popularity of the FIRO-B began to wane as the MBTI became one of the instruments of choice in business. Since FIRO-B uses completely different scales from MBTI, and was not designed to measure inborn "types," it is often used together with the MBTI by workplaces. Now the two are offered together by The Myers-Briggs Company. [10]

Statistical correlation has been observed between FIRO-B and MBTI by John W. Olmstead, and also Allen L. Hammer with Eugene R. Schnell; and between Element B and MBTI by Dr. Henry Dick Thompson.

FIRO-B ScaleE-IS-NT-FJ-P
Expressed Inclusion−59***0411*00
Wanted Inclusion−28***11*12*12*
Expressed Control−23***03−23***−01
Wanted Control04−0916***−05
Expressed Affection−52***0622***07
Wanted Affection−31***0217***07
Element B ScalesEISNTFJP
I include people-.48*.18*.16*.08
I want to include people-.33*.09.21*.08
People include me-.43*.14*-.02.11
I want people to include me-.28*.09-.07.01
I control people-.30*.14-.13*.02
I want to control people-.13*.04-.08.05
People control me-.11.00.17*.01
I want people to control me-.06-.06.12.03
I am open with people-.13*.19*.29*.07
I want to be open with people-.20*.22*.28*.02
People are open with me-.23*.44*.16*.12
I want people to be open with me-.21*.28*.22*.07
FIRO-B and MBTI Correlations

* p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001
Negative correlations associated with E, S, T and J.
Positive correlations associated with I, N, F and P.

Element B and MBTI Correlations

*Indicates statistical significance

Citations

  1. Schutz 1958, p. 19.
  2. Schutz 1958, p. 60.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Hammer & Schnell 2000, p. 6.
  4. Schutz 1994.
  5. Schutz 1992.
  6. http://www.hpsys.com/PDFs/EB%20Matrix%20Sample.pdf http://www.mikebeitler.com/freestuff/articles/Element-B.pdf Archived 2012-09-17 at the Wayback Machine
  7. "Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation™ (FIRO®)".
  8. "FIRO Element B (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation)".
  9. Pfeiffer, W.; Heslin, R. (1976). Instrumentation in Human Relations Training. Iowa City, IA: University Associates. ISBN   9780883901168.
  10. "FIRO and MBTI Instruments". The Myers-Briggs Company. 2020-05-05.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Myers–Briggs Type Indicator</span> Non-scientific personality questionnaire

The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a pseudoscientific self-report questionnaire that claims to indicate differing "psychological types". The test assigns a binary value to each of four categories: introversion or extraversion, sensing or intuition, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving. One letter from each category is taken to produce a four-letter test result representing one of sixteen possible types, such as "INFP" or "ESTJ".

In psychology, temperament broadly refers to consistent individual differences in behavior that are biologically based and are relatively independent of learning, system of values and attitudes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Schutz</span> American psychologist

William Schutz was an American psychologist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Four temperaments</span> Proto-psychological theory

The four temperament theory is a proto-psychological theory which suggests that there are four fundamental personality types: sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic. Most formulations include the possibility of mixtures among the types where an individual's personality types overlap and they share two or more temperaments. Greek physician Hippocrates described the four temperaments as part of the ancient medical concept of humourism, that four bodily fluids affect human personality traits and behaviours. Modern medical science does not define a fixed relationship between internal secretions and personality, although some psychological personality type systems use categories similar to the Greek temperaments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job satisfaction</span> Attitude of a person towards work

Job satisfaction, employee satisfaction or work satisfaction is a measure of workers' contentment with their job, whether they like the job or individual aspects or facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision. Job satisfaction can be measured in cognitive (evaluative), affective, and behavioral components. Researchers have also noted that job satisfaction measures vary in the extent to which they measure feelings about the job. or cognitions about the job.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personality test</span> Method of assessing human personality constructs

A personality test is a method of assessing human personality constructs. Most personality assessment instruments are in fact introspective self-report questionnaire measures or reports from life records (L-data) such as rating scales. Attempts to construct actual performance tests of personality have been very limited even though Raymond Cattell with his colleague Frank Warburton compiled a list of over 2000 separate objective tests that could be used in constructing objective personality tests. One exception, however, was the Objective-Analytic Test Battery, a performance test designed to quantitatively measure 10 factor-analytically discerned personality trait dimensions. A major problem with both L-data and Q-data methods is that because of item transparency, rating scales, and self-report questionnaires are highly susceptible to motivational and response distortion ranging from lack of adequate self-insight to downright dissimulation depending on the reason/motivation for the assessment being undertaken.

Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being responsible, careful or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They tend to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. Conscientiousness manifests in characteristic behaviors such as being neat, systematic, careful, thorough, and deliberate.

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS) is a pseudoscientific self-assessed personality questionnaire. It was first introduced in the book Please Understand Me. The KTS is closely associated with the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI); however, there are significant practical and theoretical differences between the two personality questionnaires and their associated different descriptions.

Self-monitoring, a concept introduced in the 1970s by Mark Snyder, describes the extent to which people monitor their self-presentations, expressive behavior, and nonverbal affective displays. Snyder held that human beings generally differ in substantial ways in their abilities and desires to engage in expressive controls. Self-monitoring is defined as a personality trait that refers to an ability to regulate behavior to accommodate social situations. People concerned with their expressive self-presentation tend to closely monitor their audience in order to ensure appropriate or desired public appearances. Self-monitors try to understand how individuals and groups will perceive their actions. Some personality types commonly act spontaneously and others are more apt to purposely control and consciously adjust their behavior. Recent studies suggest that a distinction should be made between acquisitive and protective self-monitoring due to their different interactions with metatraits. This differentiates the motive behind self-monitoring behaviours: for the purpose of acquiring appraisal from others (acquisitive) or protecting oneself from social disapproval (protective).

In psychology, personality type refers to the psychological classification of individuals. In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial. Types are sometimes said to involve qualitative differences between people, whereas traits might be construed as quantitative differences. According to type theories, for example, introverts and extraverts are two fundamentally different categories of people. According to trait theories, introversion and extraversion are part of a continuous dimension, with many people in the middle.

High-performance teams (HPTs) is a concept within organization development referring to teams, organizations, or virtual groups that are highly focused on their goals and that achieve superior business results. High-performance teams outperform all other similar teams and they outperform expectations given their composition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agreeableness</span> Personality trait

Agreeableness is a personality trait referring to individuals that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, honest, and considerate. In personality psychology, agreeableness is one of the five major dimensions of personality structure, reflecting individual differences in cooperation and social harmony.

The two-factor model of personality is a widely used psychological factor analysis measurement of personality, behavior and temperament. It most often consists of a matrix measuring the factor of introversion and extroversion with some form of people versus task orientation.

The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) is a system to measure and describe thinking preferences in people, developed by William "Ned" Herrmann while leading management education at General Electric's Crotonville facility. It is a type of cognitive style measurement and model, and is often compared to psychological pseudoscientific assessments such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Learning Orientation Questionnaire, DISC assessment, and others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Belongingness</span> Human emotional need

Belongingness is the human emotional need to be an accepted member of a group. Whether it is family, friends, co-workers, a religion, or something else, some people tend to have an 'inherent' desire to belong and be an important part of something greater than themselves. This implies a relationship that is greater than simple acquaintance or familiarity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reward dependence</span>

Reward dependence (RD) is characterized as a tendency to respond markedly to signals of reward, particularly to verbal signals of social approval, social support, and sentiment. When reward dependence levels deviate from normal we see the rise of several personality and addictive disorders.

Interpersonal compatibility or interpersonal matching is the long-term interaction between two or more individuals in terms of the ease and comfort of communication.

Communibiology is a term referring to a research paradigm that emphasizes the "neurobiological foundations of human communication behavior". Communibiologists take the nature side of the nature versus nurture debate in communication development. The communibiological paradigm was developed by Beatty and McCroskey as an alternative to the nature side supporting social learning paradigm. They believe genetics to be far more important in the development of communication behavior than learning processes and the environment. These researchers do concede, however, that genetic factors are not the sole source of communication behavior. One accepted ratio is 20% influence of cultural, situational, or environmental stimuli and 80% influence of inborn, neurobiological structures on behavior.

In psychology, certain seemingly-maladaptive human behaviors superficially appear to be attempts to confirm one's own self views, even when this self-view is negative or inaccurate. Raison oblige theory (ROT) instead explains these behaviors as consequences of a rational obligation to accept information only inasmuch as it concurs with one's current self-views.

Relational mobility is a sociological variable that represents how much freedom individuals have to choose which persons to have relationships with, including friendships, working relationships, and romantic partnerships in a given society. Societies with low relational mobility have less flexible interpersonal networks. People form relationships based on circumstance rather than active choice. In these societies, relationships are more stable and guaranteed, while there are fewer opportunities to leave unsatisfying relationships and find new ones. Group memberships tend to be fixed, and individuals have less freedom to select or change these relationships even if they wished to.

References