FIRO-B Technical Guide

Citation preview

FIRO-B

TECHNICAL GUIDE

Allen L. Hammer with Eugene R. Schnell

2.T0Q&%#22.1C S&$5#@S$$&$,

$66tas$$+%

2L.TUU&/o#LZ. TUU&o S$&$% #@$$$&$% #@

S-%%#@$$$+%%#@BS

4458%S=44 22.10

AVAA

156++%=4456++= 100&%#22.1008L#

$#@$$$&$4@ %#@SSSo7

ee

FIRO-B Technical Guide

ALLEN L. HAMMER WITH EUGENE R. SCHNELL

:

CPP, Inc. Mountain View, California

Published by CPP, Inc., 1055 Joaquin Road, 2nd Floor,

Mountain View, California 94043, 800-624-1765, www.cpp.com FIRO-B* Technical Guide Copyright 2000 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or media or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI, and Step II are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Myers & Briggs Foundation, In., in the United States and other countries. Strong Interest Inventory, FIRO, FIRO-B, the FIRO-B logo, and the CPP logo are registered trademarks and California Psychological Inventory, CPI, and Fundamental Interpersonal Relations OrientationBehavior are trademarks of CPP, Inc. Center for Creative Leadership is a registered trademark owned by the Center for Creative Leadership.

Cover illustration: © Antoine Savolainen/Stock Illustration Source Printed in the United States of America. 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13

25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18

CONTENTS

RELIABILITY

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

Internal Consistency Reliability Test-Retest Reliability 30

vi

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRO-B

Overview

of Uses

INSTRUMENT

VALIDITY

THEORY OF INTERPERSSONAL NEEDS

3

The Interpersonal Needs 3 Expressed and Wanted Needs

6

SCORING, AND MATERIALS

Appropriate Populations 7 Factors That May Affect Results Instructions

7

Intercorrelations Among FIRO-B° Scales

32

Different 0ccupational Groups 32 Preferred Organizational Characteristics

34

7

Values

44

Self-Esteem

9

46

Scores 14 Feedback Model DEVELOPMENT

13

Groups and Teams

16 19 19

Team Building and Culture Career Development

22

22

22

By Education 22

By Culture

Counseling

66

Conclusion

67

REFERENCES

26

By Organizational Level

26

• jii •

60

63

Leadership Development and Coaching

21

By Ethnic Group By Age

56

63

APPLICATIONS

Guttman Scaling

48

Innovation and Creativity 58 Additional Validity Studies 58 Differentiating Inclusion and Affection Conclusion 60

14

Ethical Issues

By Gender

45

Health, Stress, and Coping 46 Correlations with Other Measures

10

INTERPRETATION AND FEEDBACK

NORMS

41

Birth Order 44 Spirituality 44 Ratings of Managers

9

Items and Scoring Materials

31

Leadership 37 Job Tasks 38 Job Satisfaction 39 Relationship Satisfaction Leisure Activities 41

6

Group Development ADMINISTRATION,

4

4

Compatibility Theory

29

1

1

The FIRO-B° Model

29

69

66

65

TABLES

TABLE 1.

Characteristics Asso ciated with the Three Interpersonal Needs 4

TABLE 21. Correlation Between Frequency of Holland-Based Job Activities and FIRO-B° Scores 39

TABLE 2.

The

TABLE 22. Correlation of FIRO-B° Scores with Global Measures of Job Satisfaction 40

TABLE 3.

FIR0-B°

Model

5

Behaviors Associated with the Expressed and Wanted Dimensions of the Three Needs

The FIRO-B° Scoring Grid

TABLE 5.

Score Ranges, Category Labels, and Meaning for Overall Need Scores 15

TABLE 6.

Score Ranges, Category Labels, and Meaning for Total Expressed and Total Wanted Scores Characteristics

TABLE 23. Relationship of FIRO-B° Scores to Components

of Job Satisfaction

TABLE 4.

TABLE 7.

5

11

of the National Sample

40

TABLE 24. Correlation of FIRO-B° Scores and Relationship Satisfaction

15

41

TABLE 25. Leisure Activities of People Scoring Low Versus High in Each FIRO-B° Cell 42 TABLE 26. Mean Belief in a Higher Spiritual Power by Total

21

Need Score and by eC and wC

TABLE 8.

Means and Standard Deviations in the National Sample 22

TABLE 9.

Means and Standard Deviations for Blacks, Hispanics, Men, and Women in the National Sample

TABLE 27. Correlation of FIR0-B° Scores and Importance of Values 45 TABLE 28. Coping Mechanisms of People Scoring Low Versus High in Each FIRO-B° CelIl 47

23

TABLE 29. Correlation of FIRO-B° Scores with MBTI° Form M

TABLE 10. FIRO-B° Scores by Educational Level in the

National Sample

Continuous Scores in a National Sample

24

Scores by Age Group in the National Sample TABLE 12. Means and Standard Deviations of FIRO-B°

TABLE 13

TABLE 16.

Scores

30

Intercorrelations

Among FIRO-B° Scales

33

TABLE 17. Mean FIRO-B° Scores for 12 Occupational

33

TABLE 18. Occupational and Norm Groups in Rank Order by Mean FIRO-B° Cell Score

35

TABLE 19. Preferred Organizational Characteristics by FIRO-B° Category

36

TABLE 20. Correlation of FIRO-B° Scores and Measures of Leadership

37

53

TABLE 33. Relationship of MBTI° T-F Preferences and FIRO-B° Control 53

30

Groups and Two Norm Groups

51

TABLE 32. Frequency of People with MBTI° B-I and T-F Preferences and FIRO-B° Inclusion and Affection

28

TABLE 15. Test-Retest Reliability

Continuous Scores in Two Samples of Managers and Leaders 49

Subscales

TABLE 14. Reliability and Reproducibility of FIRO-B° Scales

25

TABLE 31. Correlation of FIR0-B° Scales with MBTI° Step II

27

Mean FIRO-B° Scores by Organizational Level

49

TABLE 30. Correlation of FIRO-B° Scores with MBTI° Form G

TABLE 11. Means and Standard Deviations of FIRO-B°

Scores of Managers in 17 Countries

44

TABLE 34. Interpretation of "Unexpected" Combinations of MBTI° and FIRO-B® Results

55

TABLE 35. Correlations Between the FIRO-B° Scales and

Selected Adjectives

56

TABLE 36. Correlations Between FIRO-B° and California Psychological Inventory " Scales in a Sample of Managers

57

FIGURES

FIGURE 4. Mean FIRO-B° Scores of Managers in Four Countries 26

FIGURE 1. Mean FIRO-B° Scores for the Total National

Sample, Blacks, and Hispanics

23

FIGURE 2. Mean FIRO-B° Scores by Educational Level FIGURE 3. Mean FIRO-B° Scores by Age Group in the National Sample

25

24

FIGURE 5. Mean FIRO-B° Scores by Organizational Level 28

THE FIRO-B° INSTRUMENT

ghe Fundamental Interpersonal he Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B")

instrument

is a short

but powerful self-report tool designed to measure behavior that derives from inter-

FIRO-B literature. Data showing the relationship of the instrument with other psychological instruments, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI") and California Psychological Iventory (CPI") instruments, are also presented.

Overview of Uses

personal needs. It can be used to address a variety of issues including one-to-one

relationships, teamwork, career develop-

ment, organizational culture, and leadership development. When used properly, it

provides

individuals

and teams with

viduals, couples, and groups in any situation where insight into interpersonal behaviors may prove useful. This assessment is most commonly

used to help people

• Become aware of their interpersonal needs • Develop strategies to meet those needs

interpersonal behaviors. This in turn can lead to increased interpersonal effective-

• Become aware of how their needs may be perceived by others

ness and satisfaction in working with or

•

The purpose of this manual is to compile and update the relevant technical material available on the FIRO-B instrument. In recent years new information about the assessment has become avail-

able in the form of validity studies, cross-cultural. norms, and applications. New administration options and important new support materials have also been developed. A large-scale study of the FIRO-B

instrument, based on a national repre-

sentative sample of the US. population, has also been conducted, and the results are reported here for the rst time. This survey has enabled research on the relationship between FIRO-B scores and a

plethora of variables previously absent from the

fl

The FIRO-B instrument can be used with indi-

increased insight into and appreciation of

relating to others.

fl

fi

INTRODUCTION TO

Identify sources of career dissatisfaction as well as careers, organizations, or tasks that

might increase their satisfaction Identify sources of con ict with others, both at work and in personal relationships

• Build more satisfying relationships • Understand their own leadershipbehaviors The FIR0-B instrument can be used in organi-

zations to • Identify organizational culture and its implica-

tions • Identify potential sources of con ict between

two cultures

Technical Guide

The FIRO-B

• Designleadership development programs • Increase the productivity of teams and identify the contributions of individual team members

instrument can also be used

in a variety of research settings as an independe variable to measure individual differences and as an outcome variable to study the effects oftreat

ment or training interventions.

THEORY OF

INTERPERSONAL NEEDS

he

FIRO-B instrument

created

in the late

was 1950s by

William Schutz (1958). FIRO-B theory was developed in the context of

understanding and predicting how high-

performance military teams would work together. Schutz started from the premise that "people need people"that in addition to physical needs such as food and

shelter,

interpersonal needs also moti-

vated the behavior of individuals. Schutz used the term interpersonal to indicate any

interaction,

real or imagined,

iety. To avoid this unpleasant outcome, people are motivated to take action to meet the need.

However, individuals vary greatly in what constitutes satisfaction and dissatisfaction and therefore in the level of interpersonal need experienced by each.

With these de nitions in mind, the interpersonal theory was further informed by Schutz's reading of the psychological literature, including that of Freud, Adorno (Adorno, FrenkelBrunswik, Levinson, and Sanford, 1948), Fromm (1941, 1947), Adler, and Jung; the group literature of Bion (1948-1951) and Kaiser; and his own observations of group behavior. This led him to posit that interpersonal needs could be summarized in three areas: inclusion, control, and affection.

that occurs

between people. For example, a manager might

The Interpersonal Needs

delegate a task to an employee through face-toface conversation, by phone, or in a mnemo. This

behavior on the part of the manager constitutes an interaction and thereby expresses an interpersonal need. However, that same manager might decide not to delegate the task, perhaps due to a concern that the employee might dislike the task and therefore the manager for having assigned it. This

behavior on the part of the manager would also be

considered an interaction because it anticipated (rightly or wrongly) a reaction on the part of

another person.

fi

to establish and maintain satisfactory interactions and associations with other people. It describes the

extent of contact one desires with others and the

degree to which one wants to join with others in shared activity. Underlying the need to interact with others is a recognition of the signi cance and importance of the self and of others as unique individuals.

Inclusion

behaviors

represent an

attempt to establish areas of mutual interest and

ner that was congruent with how biological needs

common ground based on this recognition. It

are commonly understood. A need is a physical or

operates through an attempt to include others in one's activities and to want to be included in their activities. The need for Inclusion is particularly

not satis ed leads to a state of discomfort or anx-

fi

The interpersonal need for Inclusion (|) is the need

The term need was used by Schutz in a man-

psychological condition of an individual that if

fi

Inclusion

Technical Guide TABLE 1

•

Affection

CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE THREE INTERPERSONAL NEEDS

Inclusion

Control

Affection

Association

Power

Being personal

Interaction

Authority

Closeness

Distinction

In uence

Openness

Prominence

Responsibility

Supportiveness

Attention

Leadership

Being af rmed

Participation

Consistency

Warmth

Involvement

Decisiveness

Empathy

Contact

Dominance

Encouragement

Belonging

Competitiveness

Appreciativeness

The interpersonal need for Affection (A) describes a person's behavior in forming close, personal relationships with others. It applies primarily to one-to-one interaction rather than to group behavior, which is the realm of Inclusion. It determines the degree of openness, warmth, and personal connection one seeks with others: the amount

of closeness or distance one seeks to

establish. It also describes the extent to which people need to feel liked and appreciated. In addition, in some contexts it can re ect the desire to love and be loved. Another aspect of this need is the

amount of personal disclosure one desires and is

comfortable with, either from oneself or from others. Some characteristics associated with Affection are shown in Table 1.

Expressed and Wanted Needs relevant to the relationship between an individual and a group. It describes an individual's need to

In addition to the three interpersonal needs, FIRO-B theory also describes how much each of the three needs is Expressed (e) or Wanted (w). The Expressed dimension of a need describes the

feel a sense of belonging and a desire to be noticed

either within the group or by outsiders as a result

of being a member of the group. In either case the desire to be noticed suggests that the extent of prominence

a person seeks is also a

extent to which a associated with the or she behaves in Wanted dimension

component

of Inclusion. Some characteristics associated with Inclusion are shown in Table 1.

to which a person prefers to receive those behaviors from others: the degree to which one wants

Control

others to behave that way toward oneself. Expressed and Wanted behaviors operate dynamically between individuals. How individuals respond to Expressed behavior from others depends on how much they want that type of behavior.

The interpersonal need for Control (C) describes an individual's behavior with respect to responsibility, power, in uence, and decision making. It re ects the degree to which one desires to in uence or direct the behavior of others. A related concern is how much

responsibility

a person

wants or is willing to accept, and therefore the

degree of comfort one experiences in assuming the role of a leader or a follower. It also re ects the extent to which a person wants to be per-

ceived as competent,

decisive,

and in charge.

Control needs are related to the extent to which

people seek dominance in group or interpersonal settings by seeking to set the agenda and structure the activities. Some characteristics associated with Control are shown in Table 1.

The FIR0-B° Model The FIRO-B model describes the interaction of the three interpersonal needs with the Expressed and Wanted dimensions of those needs. The model is represented in the form of a 3x2 grid. The de nition of each cell is shown in Table 2. Some examples of behaviors associated with each cell are shown in Table 3. A person can have any combination of High, Medium, or Low needs

fi

fl

fl

fl

fl

fl

fi

•4• fl

person initiates the behaviors need: the degree to which he that way toward others. The of a need describes the extent

Theory of Interpersonal Needs TABLE 2

•

THE FIRO-B°

Dimension/Need Expressed (e)

M0DEL

Inclusion()

Control (C)

Affection (A)

The extent to which you make

The extent to which you make

The extent to which you try to

an effort to include others in

an effort to control and in u-

get close to people and to

your activities, to join and

ence others or situations, to

engage them on a personal

belong to groups, and to be

organize and direct others,

level; your degree of comfort in

with people

and to asume responsibility

being open with and supportive

of others

Wanted (w)

The extent to which you want

The extent to which you are

others to include you in their

comfortableworking in wel

others to act warmly toward

activities and to invite you to

de ned situations with clear

you and to take a personal

join or belong to groups; the

expectations and instructions

extent to which you want to

The extent to which you want

interest in you; the extent to

which you want others to

be noticed

share things with you and

to encourage you

Source: Adapted from Schnell and Hammer (1993). Used with permission.

TABLE 3

•

BEHAVIORS ASSS0CIATED WITH THE EXPRESSED AND WANTED DIMENSIONS F THE THREE NEEDS

Dimension/Need Expressed (e)

Inclusion() Inviting others to join in

your activities • Involving others in projects and meetings

• Incorporating everyone's ideas and suggestions

• Taking a personal interest

Control (C) • Assuming positions of authority • Managing the conversation • Attempting to in uence

others'opinions • Establishing policies and

procedures

Affection (A) • Reassuringand supporting others

• Showingconcern about others' personal lives

• Sharing your personal opinions and feelings with others

• Being trustwortiy and loyal

in others

Wanted (w)

• Getting involved in highpro le activities and

projects • Doing things to get noticed

• Going along with the

majority opinion • Wearing distinctive clothing

fi

fl

fl

fi

fl

Source: Adapted from Schnell and Hammer (1993). Used with permission.

• Deferring to the wishes,

• Being exible and

needs, and requests of

accommodating

others • Asking for help on a job

• Raising issues for others

to consider or decide Involving others in decisions

• Listening carefuly to others • Trying to please others

• Making yourselfavailable to others

Technical Guide

Additional behaviors associated with the needs

For example, two people with High needs for Expresed and Wanted Affection will be compati-

may be found in Schnell and Hammer (1993).

ble because both will see Affection

in the six categories

de ned by the model.

the basis of the relationship, and they will engage each other around Affection needs.

Compatibility Theory Because FIRO-B theory is concerned with interpersonal needs, a natural extension is to the con-

struct of compatibility. In FIRO-B terms, compatibility generally deals with the extent to which people's needs are satis ed in a relationship. Schutz

discusses three kinds of compatibility: originator, reciprocal, and interchange compatibility. Originator compatibility measures how much two people will come into con ict about who will initiate and who will receive behaviors. For example, two people having High needs for Expressed Control and Low needs for Wanted Control 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 con ict. Reciprocal compatibility measures how well

and a second person has the opposite

fl

fl

groups. Research on compatibility

theory is pre-

sented in the Validity chapter of this manual.

Group Development Another extension of FIRO-B theory is in the

area of group development. Schutz (1966) posited that all groups must deal

with

the issues of

Inclusion, Control, and Affection, in that order. As a group is forming, the rst order of business is to determine who is to be a member, who will be

"in" or “out," and how to recognize members and membership (Inclusion). The group then turns to the issues of decision making, responsibility, and the distribution of power and in uence (Control). Once these issues are resolved, Affection becomes

essarily

represent

distinct

phases, as they are

pattern (a High need for Wanted Control and

always present to some degree or other; rather, certain issues will be emphasized at different

a Low need for Expressed

points in the life of the group. However, if these

Control),

there is a

issues are not

compatibility

measures how

addressed and

resolved by the

group, then the functioning of the group can be impaired. Unfortunately, there has been little

research to date on this fascinating extension of

FIRO-B theory.

much individuals share the same need strengths.

fi

de ned, it is easy to look at the compatibility of groups and teams. Schutz (1955) stated that compatibility as outlined in FIRO-B theory is the dominant factor in explaining the productivity of

how close or personal they want to be with one another. Schutz warns that these issues do not nec-

responsibility. Interchange

fl

between two people is

act in ways to meet his or her needs in a relation-

high degree of reciprocal compatibility because both individuals will have their Control needs met in the relationship. One will take charge; the other will be happy to let him or her assume the

fi

compatibility

an issue, as the group members must then decide

Control

fi

Once

each person can get what he or she wants and can

ship. For example, if one person has a High need for Expressed Control and a Low need for Wanted

fi

behaviors as

he publisher, CPE Inc., classi es the

FIRO-B

level of vocabulary and comprehension that is

important. However, use of the self-scoring version of the instrument may cause problems for those who cannot follow precise directions, add

instrument as level B.

Quali cations for

this class of

instruments are set forth in the CPP cata-

long columns of integers, or

log, or may be obtained by calling the

numbers

nd and transfer

from one page to another.

It is the

responsibility of the user of the instrument to determine whether his or her local population can successfully understand and answer the items and, if the self-scorable format is used, accurately calculate the scores.

publisher. Generally, the classi cation requires that those wishing to purchase and administer the FIRO-B instrument and

provide computerrgenerated reports to clients must meet a speci ed level of edu-

range of applications, for the following reasons it

cation and/or training. The classi cation

is recommended that the instrument not be used

system is designed to protect clients from

inappropriate or misleading interpreta-

alone for the purposes of employment selection: the instrument is designed to provide developmental or learning feedback to clients, the inter-

tions of the FIRO-B results. While the

pretive model designates the respondent as the

items and scoring keys are restricted in

owner of the responses and the results, and cur-

this manner, print support materials such

rently available research does not support the use of the results in selection situations. This recom-

as interpretive

Although the FIRO-B

booklets are available to

instrument has a wide

mendation, however, would not apply to the use of the results as part of a battery of instruments

anyone.

administered by a professional trained and qualied in the area of selection. In such cases the

Appropriate Populations

results would be integrated with and mutually supported by the results of other instruments and presented in a professional report along with expert judgment.

The instrument may be administered to anyone whose vocabulary is suf cient to understand the

items and the instructions and whose level of cog-

nitive functioning will enable him or her to understand a verbal or written interpretation of the results. The instrument has been successfully

Factors That May Affect Results

administered to individuals ranging in age from

When administering the FIRO-B instrument, it is important to be cognizant of factors that may

14 to 90. There is no speci c educational level

recommended because, as noted above, it is the

fi

fi

fi

fi

fi

•7• fi

fi

AND MATERIALS

fi

fi

ADMINISTRATION, SCORING,

Technical Guide affect how a person responds to the items. These

ated with High scores and take bad instructions

include the following:

with Low scores on all scales except eC, which showed no differences. Furnham notes that his subjects complained about the dif culty of consis-

• Life events that lead to intense self-re ection

or temporary withdrawal from others • Cultural differences affecting the expression of needs • Language or vocabulary limitations that cause dif culty in understanding the items or the instructions

Attempts to consciously avoid certain extreme responses

• Pressure from the environment to express certain behaviors Note that in the latter two instances the client is attempting to respond to the items in such a way as to produce a desired score. The scoring method

used to transform IRO-B responses into scores, however, makes such attempts dif cult. Respondents who are trying to alter their responses usually do so subtly for fear of being discovered, which means that they try to alter their true responses only slightly toward the desired direction. However, because clients do not know the cutoff

value for a response to be counted as a

point on a scale and because there are nine items

per scale, it is unlikely that they would be able to

alter

their

Furthermore,

score by a

signi cant

as the FIRO-B

instrument

amount. is not

recommended for use in selection settings, a small

change in the score will adverse effects.

not have signi cant

In situations when clients are not trying to be subtle in altering the outcome of the FIRO-B

fi

fi

fi

fi

In a related study, Salminen (1988) examined

the relationship between FIRO-B scores and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale results

among 188 students from an introductory course in social psychology. Both instruments were translated into Finnish. The results showed correlations

between the two instruments ranging from .06 for wl to .20 for eA, with a median of .12. The correlation for wC was -.19, indicating that High scores on social

desirability are related to a low

need to be controlled by others. This is the opposite of what would be predicted from an under-

standing of the meaning of the wC scale because people with Low wC scores often exhibit rebellion, the opposite of socially desirable behavior. Expressed needs tended to be more strongly associated with social desirability than were Wanted needs. The author points out that although the two measures appear to be related, the shared variance does not exceed 4%.

Some evidence that major life events may affect

FIRO-B

scores is

found

in a study by

outcome. Furnham (1990b) asked 64 people to

who had had a parent die to those of students in a

"fake good" or “fake bad." The instructions were to "answer the questions in order to give a really

control group who had not suffered such an event. The mean time since the parent's death was 4.6

good (bad) impression of yourself; that is, to present yourself in the best (worst) possible light. You

years. There were signi cant differences between

need not be honest in your answers." He com-

the death-loss group was 7.3 versus S.6 for the

pared the responses of people who received these

Control group (p < .03). On the wA scale, the results differed by gender, with men in the death-

tal conditions, fake good instructions were associfi

such extreme responses likely or with instructions indicating that respondents need not be honest!

instrument, it appears to be possible to fake an

given standard instructions. Under the experimen-

fl

and may alert the administrator to potential problems, they have limited relevance. It is to be hoped that no administrator would administer the FIRO-B instrument under conditions that made

Meshot and Leitner (1993). The study compared FIRO-B scores of a group of 20 young adults

instructions to those of a control group who were

fi

tently faking responses, especially in the fake bad condition, and concludes that it is not easy to do so. While the results of this study are interesting

the two groups on wl and wA. The wl mean for

loss group having higher scores (M = 8.1) and Women lower scores (M = 4.5) than those in their

Administration, Scoring, and Materials

respective gender control groups (M = 6.15 and 5.5 for men and women controls, respectively). The authors hypothesize that these wA scores per-

sections of items, and that before they respond to

haps represent an "overpersonal" compensation for the men and a form of avoidance for the

Although there is no time limit for completing the items, clients should be instructed to answer each

Women.

item and to not dwell too long on any givern

the items in a given section, they should carefully read the instructions that precede the section.

response. They may take the items at face value;

Instructions The

FIRO-B

instrument

may be

there are no hidden meanings.

administered

using either the self-scorable version or the online version, which requires CPP software. The instrument can be administered either individually or in a group setting. Clients can usually respond to all of the items in about 10 minutes, although some

may take up to 20 minutes. Although faking is usually not an issue given the conditions under which the FIRO-B instru-

Depending on the setting and the purpose of the administration, it may also be helpful to clarify for the clients the frame of reference they should use when responding to the items. Some

people behave very differently at home than they do at work, and how people respond may depend on which setting they are thinking of as they read the items.

Items and Scoring

ment is administered, it is important to establish a atmosphere and to give a brief

The FIRO-B instrument contains 54 items. The

overview of the purpose of the instrument. It usu-

client is asked to respond to each item using one

ally suf ces to say that the FIRO-B instrument is

of two six-point rating scales. One rating scale elicits the frequency with which the client engages in the behavior described in the item. The options

nonthreatening

designed to help people understand how they

interact with others. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize the following points: • The items have no right or wrong answers.

1. Never

• There is no passing or failing associated with the results.

2. Rarely

• The results are nonjudgmental and are to be

used for learning and development.

• The results may provide insights about how people interact with others and how others may perceive them. If the instrument is being administered in a

business setting, it is important that clients know who will have access to their scores. Generally, unless there is prior, freely given consent, item responses and results are considered the private property of the client and are not to be shared

with anyone without explicit permission from the client.

It is helpful when administering the FIRO-B

instrument to acknowledge the repetitive nature of many of the items. It is also important to draw clients' attention to the fact that there are four

fi

are

3. Occasionally

4. Sometimes 5. Often

6. Usually

The other rating scale elicits selectivity, i.e., with how many people the client engages in the behavior described in the item. The response options on this scale are

1. Nobody 2. One or two people

3. A few people 4. Some people

5. Many people

6. Most people

Technical Guide Although the respondent is asked to circle a

number from 1 to 6 that best describes his or her

• Make sure that you count only responses (Xs) that fall within the white box. Do not count

behavior, the scale scores are derived using a 0, 1

any response that falls in the green shaded

key. Scoring the instrument consists of the follow-

portion of the response line.

ing steps:

If there is an X in the white box, make sure

1. It is determined whether the client's response

that you follow the dark solid line that leads

for an item reached the necessary cutoff established for that item.

from the white box to the correct white square in one of the middle columns.

2. If the response reached the cutoff, one point is added to the scale to which that item is keyed.

• Make sure that you add the Xs down each column correctly.

If the response failed to reach the cutoff, noth-

• Make sure that you transfer the column totals at the bottom of the columns to the correct

ing is added to the scale. For example, if a

client responded to item #1 (“I try to be with

green shaded boxes on the FIRO-B grid on

people") by marking a "3" on the answer sheet ("occasionally"), he or she would receive no

points

on the Expressed

the next page of the answer sheet. Note that the order of the FIRO-B scores at the bottom

Inclusion scale.

of the columns does not correspond to the

However, a response of "4* ("sometimes")

order in the grid, so care must be taken to

would reach the cutoff for this item and would result in one point being recorded for the Expressed Inclusion scale. 3. The item responses (number of items for which the threshold was reached) for each scale are summed, yielding six scores: el, wl, eC, wC, eA, and wA. These scores are placed in the appropriate cells on the FIRO-B grid.

4. Total Need scores for Inclusion, Control, and Affection are derived by summing across the Expressed and Wanted categories (down the columns on the grid).

ensure that the column totals are transferred

correctly. As a check on the accuracy of the scoring, note

that each of the six scores derived from the handscoring procedure can range from 0 to 9. The other six Scores shown on the FIRO-B grid are calculated by summing the cell scores, as shown

on the grid. The meaning of the cell scores and the ranges and meaning of the summative scores are discussed in the Interpretation and Feedback chapter of this manual. Table 4 shows the FIRO-B scoring grid.

5. Total Expressed and Total Wanted scores are

Materials

derived by summing across the need scores

The FIRO-B instrument is available in the fol-

(across the rows on the grid). 6. The

Overall Need score is derived by sum-

ming all six cell scores or, equivalently, by adding the Expressed and Wanted scores or adding the three Total Need scores.

If clients are scoring their own responsesusing the self-scorable version of the instrument, it is important that the administrator walk them through the scoring process step by step. There are a number of common scoring mistakes that can thus be avoided:

lowing formats: self-scorable booklet, handscorable format using scoring keys, computerscorable mail-in answer sheets used for interpretive reports, CPP Software System, and Internet online administration and scoring. The self-

scorable version consists of the 54 FIRO-B items; a self-scoring page; a results grid showing the six-

cell FIRO-B model along with Total Need scores, total Expressed and Wanted scores, and Overall Need score; and an overview

of the

FIRO-B

model. For those using computer scoring (mail-in, on-site, or online), two interpretive reports are

• 10•

Administration, Scoring, and Materials TABLE 4

•

THE FIRO-B° SCORING GRID

Expressed Inchusion

Expressed Control

Expressed Affection

Total Expressed

(el)

(eC)

(eA)

(el + eC + eA)

Wanted Inclusion

Wanted Control

Wanted Affection

Total Wanted

(wl)

(wC)

(wA)

(wl + wC + WA)

Total Inclusion

Total Control

Total Afection

Overall

(el + wl)

(eC + wC)

(eA + WA)

(el + eC + eA + wỈ + WC +WA)

available. The FIRO-B° Interpretive Report for

The report concludes with a detailed action

Organizations (Schnell and Hammer, 1996) applies FIRO-B results to a business setting. After

plan, followed by a list of resources for further exploration. The Coach's Guide to the Leadership

providing an interpretation of all FIRO-B scores for a client, the report applies the results to

Report (Schnell, 1999) contains numerous inter-

pretive strategies for using this report. Additional support materials available include the following interpretive booklets: Introduction

• Leadership Improving team effectiveness

to the FIRO-B°

Introduction

• Team roles

• Careerdevelopment Another report, The Leadership Report Using FIRO-B° and MBTI (Schnell, 1999), integrates the results of the FIRO-B and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instruments and applies them to leadership development. After providing a description of the person's overall leadership style, the report provides interpretation in the following areas: • Roles the client is likely to assume within an

organization • What the client shows rst to others when he or she is in a leadership role

either individually or in a group setting, as clients can use them to locate and study descriptions of

their own patterns of scores. For those working in clinical settings, Ryan (1989) provides clinical interpretation. For those who may be interested in more background on the FIRO-B instrument and how it ts into the context of all the Schutz instruments, the FIRO° Avareness Scales Manual (Schutz, 1978) is useful. For additional technical

information, consult Gluck (1983).

• Bases of power and in uence • The client's in uence on his or her organiza-

tional culture • Dealing with change and stress

fl

• 11• fl

Organizations

Interpersonal Effectiveness (Schnell, 2000). These booklets are particularly useful with the selfscorable version of the FIRO-B instrument,

• What the client expects from other leaders

fi

to the FIRO-B° in

(Schnell and Hammer, 1993), FIRO-B° Interpersonal Dimensions: Understanding Your FIRO-B° Results (Musslewhite, 1982), and Participating in Teams: Using Your FIRO-B° Results to Improve

Working with teams

fi

(Waterman and Rogers, 1996),

INTERPRETATION

AND FEEDBACK

here are a number of general prin-

score (no matter which score is being interpreted)

ciples to keep in mind during an

means that the person engages in the behavior

FIRO-B

most of the time with most people. The behavior indexed by the score is therefore typical of this

principles

person, and he or she would probably be described

should be conveyed to the client at every

by others as someone for whom this behavior is

interpretation

instrument. The

of the

following

characteristic.

opportunity:

In contrast, a Low score on any

scale means that the person does not engage in the behavior very often and/or does so only with a

• There are no good or bad or right or wrong results.

select group of people. Others would not usualy

• Results are hypotheses to be explored.

person. It is important to understand, however, that a

describe this behavior as characteristic

• The results are "owned" by the client in that

score of 0 on any scale does not necessarily mean

he or she alone is responsible for determining

that the person has said “nobody" to all of the selectivity items and “never" to all of the fre-

their meaning. • Results must be considered in the overall con-

text of the person's life or situation.

of this

quency items. For example, one person with a score of 0 on Wanted Inclusion (the scale with the

highest frequency of 0 scores in the national sam• There is a need to consider the

under which the administered.

• The

interpretation

FIRO-B

conditions

instrument was

ple) responded with either a “2" or a "3" to about half of the items on this scale, which indicates that he reported engaging in Wanted Inclusion behav-

should stay close to the

meaning of the response formats used with the

items (i.., scoresrepresent self-reports of frequency and/or selectivity of behaviors).

iors "rarely" or "occasionally" and with "one or two people" or a few people." In fact, the "never" with "nobody" pattern has never been observed, even in large data sets. Without evidence to the contrary, then, a 0 scale score should

This last principle warrants more discussion. It

be

interpreted

as

describing

a

person

who

is

is important to keep in mind when interpreting

highly selective about how often and with whom

FIRO-B

he or she engages in the behavior.

scores that the response

formats

are

designed to allow the person to indicate how often he or she engages in the behavior described

in the item and with how many peoplethe frequency and selectivity of the behavior. A High

Literally, the

score means that the person did not reach the

threshold of frequency or selectivity necessary to count the behavior on that scale.

•13•

Technical Guide

Ethical IsSues

Overall Need scores in the Low range to give

As with any psychological instrument, care must be taken when administering, scoring, and interpreting

the

FIRO-B

instrument so as to ensure

that the rights of clients are respected and protected. Respondents should be told why they are being asked to complete the instrument, how the information will be used, and who will haveaccess to the data. FIRO-B results should generally be considered con dential unless informed consent by the respondent declares otherwise. During

interpretation it is very important to avoid any negative judgments regarding High or Low scores or any implication of pathology associated with

examples of people who may be quite successful and well developed and report little need for interpersonal interaction. Table 5 shows that such might be the case for creative or independent people such as architects or physics majors. Similar conclusions could likely be extended to other kinds of scientists and artists as well as perhaps

professors and athletes, although these hypotheses remain to be tested. In each case the needs of at least some of the people in such occupations lie

primarily in domains other than the interpersonal. Table 5 shows the categories typically applied to the Overall Need score and the meaning associated with each.

any sCore.

Total Behavior Scores:

Scores

Expressed and Wanted

There are 12 scores that are commonly used in

interpretations of the FIRO-B instrument:

Each Total Behavior score ranges from 0 to 27

and represents the overall degree to which the

•1 OverallNeedscore • 2 Total Behavior scores (Total Expressed or Wanted)

•3 Total Need scores (Total Inclusion, Control, Affection) •6 individual cell scores (el, wl, eC, wC, eA, WA)

For each kind of score, interpretive categories are used to both simplify interpretation and avoid overinterpreting the numerical scores. The score ranges and typical meanings associated with these interpretive categories are discussed below.

person prefers to initiate need-directed behavior (Expressed) versus the degree to which he or she prefers others to initiate those behaviors (Wanted). The scoring categories and the meaning of each are shown in Table 6. The difference in overall degree of Expressed versus Wanted needs is often useful in determining the person's general level of comfort with initiating or receiving behaviors and can provide clues as to

possible

sources

of

interpersonal

dissatisfaction. A difference of three points is usu-

ally considered meaningful and warrants some

attention. When

Expressed needs are greater

Wanted needs, a person is more comfortable

or her needs. Such people are more active than

The Overall Need score is the total of the six individual cell scores: Overall Need = el + wl + eC + wC + eA + wA. The Overall Need score can

passive in the sense that they attempt to express

range from 0 to 54 and represents the person's

overall need for human interaction. It shows the

assume that the sender also wants to receive similar behaviors. However, because the sender's

extent to which the person believes that other

Wanted needs are signi cantly lower than his or

people and human interaction can be a source of

her Expressed needs, this assumption is not war-

personal satisfaction or can help attain important goals. It is sometimes helpful when interpreting

ranted. The sender may in fact adopt behaviors

their needs for Inclusion, Control, or Affection. The recipients of these expressed behaviors may

• 14• fi

tak-

ing the initiative than relying on others to meet his

Overall Need Score

fi

than

that attempt to keep others at a distance so as to

Interpretation and Feedback TABLE 5

•

SCORE RANGES, CATEG ORY LABELS, AND MEANING FOR OVERALL NEED SCORES

Score Range

Category

0-15

Low

Meaning • Involvement with others is not a primary source of need satisfaction

• Other needs, e.g., intelectual stimulation or solitary pursuits, predominate • Tend to need privacy to do their best work • Prefer to keep to themselves and tend to have a small circle of friends • Highly selective about how often and with whom they interact

16-26

Medium-Low

• Involvement with others is sometimes a source of satisfaction, depending on the

people and the context • Work most effectively alone, but with others when the objectives are focused • Tend to have a small circle of friends whom they see occasionlly

Medium-High

27-38

• Involvement is usually a source of satisfaction

• May enjoy small-group work settings • Tend to have a larger group of friends and may contact them on a regular basis

39-54

High

• Involvement with others is enjoyable and satisfying

• Engage in interpersonal interaction with many people and on a frequent basis

TABLE 6

SCORE RANGES, CATEGORY LABELS, AND MEANING FOR TOTAL EXPRESSED AND TOTAL WANTED SCORES

Score Range

Category

Total Expressed

Total Wanted

0-7

Low

Are not comfortable initiating social behavior

Are not comfortable relying on others

for what is needed; don't expect much;

are independent

Medium

8-19

20-27

High

Are selective: Reactivity varies by

Are selective: Reactivity varies by

person Or situation

person or situation

Enjoy initiating social behavior

Rely on others; are comfortable accept-

ing behaviors from others

avoid the directing of unwanted behaviors toward

ceived as mixed signals by the recipients, and one of the issues in feedback sessions might be to

him or her. The classic example of such a situation in the

Inclusion

area is the person

who says,

“Don't call me, I'll call you." This person may feel very comfortable initiating Inclusion behaviors by calling others to invite them to a meeting or event. This same person, however, due to relatively low wl scores, may feel bothered if he or she receives return calls from others. Such behavior can be per-

examine the impact of this behavior on others. When Wanted needs are signi cantly greater than Expressed needs, the person is more comfortable relying on others to meet his or her needs

than initiating need-directed behavior. Such people are more passive than active in the sense that they prefer to have others express Inclusion,

fi

• 15•

Technical Guide

Control,

or Affection behaviors toward them.

Conversely, when faced with a choice, the person

However, if the people on whom they are relying do not express those needs, then the people with the relatively high Wanted needs will be dissatised. One of the reasons that the behaviors they seek may not be forthcoming is that others are not aware of their needs. One of the issues in feedback sessions with such individuals is to help them nd

will be most willing to give up satisfaction of the

ways to communicate their needs more explicitly and to explore alternative ways to meet their needs.

Total Need Scores

the Medium range (6-12) indicates that the person will often attempt to satisfy this need, by either expressing or eliciting the appropriate behaviors. A score in the High range (13-18) suggests that the person will consistently pursue satisfaction of this need; he or she will engage in the associatedbehayiors frequently and with many different people across different settings. The need with the greatest score is the area in

which the person feels most comfortable. This is generally the need he or she will seek to satisfy

rst, especially in new situations. For example, consider what happens if the per-

six cells ranges from 0 to 9. Low scores (0-2) suggest that the behaviors associated with a need are

rarely displayed by the person; they are reserved

for very few people or will manifest themselves only in speci c situations. Medium scores (3-6) indicate that the behaviors associated with a need will be observable, but only some of the time. When these scores are interpreted, the client often says, "Yes, it depends," and is able to identify situations in which or people with whom the behayiors are used. High scores (7-9) suggest that the behaviors associated with a need are highly

the meaning of the individual cell scores. Waterman and Rogers (1996) and Schnell and

that others on the team can trust him or her. The need with the highest score is also the

need that the person is least likely to sacri ce.

information

on

Hammer (1993) also provide extensive descriptions of patterns related to the scores in the individual cells.

Feedback Model Although professionals will properly differ as to how they prefer to interpret FIRO-B results, the following protocol has been found helpful, as it describes a sequence of interpreting scores as well

as the kinds of questions to ask.

• 16 fi

nation of a need with the Expressed or Wanted dimension of that need. The score in each of the

ways to make himself or herself known to the other team members and to " t in." If the strongest need is for Control, he or she will focus

people he or she can trust and with demonstrating

fi

Each individual cell score represents the combi-

3 in this manual provides more

concerned with developing close relationships with

fi

Individual Cell Scores

to gain a sense of belonging; the person will seek

highest score is for Affection, the person will be

fi

for the opportunity to work closely with a much smaller group that he or she can get to know better. Although the need with the highest score will be the primary motivator of behavior, the other needs will not necessarily be ignored, especially if the other Total Need scores are in the Middle or

how to join in the activities of the group and how

primarily on understanding the hierarchy or the structure of the team: who is in charge, how decisions are made, who is responsible for what. If the

fi

chance to be a member of an exciting new team

characteristic of the person and will be observable across situations and people. People with High scores consistently behave in ways that are designed to satisfy the corresponding need. Table

son joins a new team. If his or her highest Total Need is for Inclusion, the primary concern will be

fi

score is for Inclusion may be willing to give up the

High range.

Total Need scores, one each for Inclusion, Control, and Affection, range from 0 to 18. A score in the Low range (0-5) suggests that the individual is either indifferent to satisfying this need or very selective about with whom it is satis ed. A score in

fi

need with the lowest score. For example, a person whose highest score is for Affection and lowest

Interpretation and Feedback

lows. The Overall Need score is the most general

1. Summative scores

score; the other scores can be considered manifes-

1.1. What is the category (High, Medium, Low) for the Overall Need score?

1.2. What is the relationship between Total

Expressed and Total anted scores? 1.3. How much discrepancy is there between Total Expressed and Total Wanted? How much tension? 2. Interaction between Expressed and Wanted

within each need 2.1.

What is the

interaction

between Ex-

pressed and Wanted within Inclusion? 2.2.

What is the

interaction

between Ex-

pressed and Wanted within Control? 2.3.

What is the

interaction

tations of the person's need for interaction in speci c need domains. Attention can next shift to examining the relationship between the Total Expressed and Total Wanted results, and then to this relationship within each of the need areas separately (e.g., Expressed Inclusion compared to Wanted Inclusion). Then attention can move to a discussion of the highest Total Need, then the low-

est Total Need, followed by the remaining Total Need score. The next step is to look at scores for individual cells, and then discuss how one need might be in uenced or modi ed by another. For example, how might the client's High need for eC be modi ed by his or her High need for eA? This leads naturally to a discussion of the overall pat-

tern of needs.

between Ex-

A

pressed and Wanted within Affection?

scores to the reason he or she has taken the instru-

ment. For example, if the instrument has been administered to a client in individual counseling for relationship issues, the discussion might focus

3. Relative sum scores

3.1. What is the highest Total Need?

3.2. What is the lowest Total Need?

on which of the person's needs are, and are not,

being met in the relationship; how to increase the chances of getting needs met; or how the client's needs are compatible with those of the signi cant other. When the instrument has been administered

3.3. What is the remaining need?

4. Individual cell scores 4.1. What is the range of possible scores in each cell?

in an organization, discussion might be focused on

career satisfaction, leadership, team performance,

4.2. Where do the client's cell scores fall in

corporate culture, or other organizational topics.

this range?

The experienced interpreter may be able to weave these context-speci c comments into the general

5. Across-need interaction

discussion of the scores. For those with less expe-

S.1. How might a High need be modi ed by

rience in interpreting the FIRO-B instrument, it

another need? (e-g., High eC and Low eA)

may be useful to

S.2. What does the total pattern suggest about the client's behavior?

tematic interpretation of all of the results before moving to applications. More information can be found in the Materials section in this manual (on

6. Interpretation of scores into speci c content areas related to the client's reason for using the FIRO-B instrument

other settings) and in the Applications chapter.

score, as it sets a context and tone for all that fol-

fi

fi

fi

fi

fi

fl

fi

fi

• 17• fi

rst walk the client through a sys-

support materials that can be used in these and

It is useful to begin with the Overall Need

fi

nal step is to relate the person's FIRO-B

DEVEL0PMENT

rn developing the FIRO-B instrument, Schutz identi ed the following two

purposes: • To construct a measure of how an individual acts in interpersonal situations • To construct a measure that leads to the prediction of interactions between people based

on FIRO-B data

As described above, the two response formats used on the FIRO-B instrument ask about the

frequency of the behavior speci ed in the item,

with options that range from "never" to "usually," and the selectivity of the behavior, with options that range from "nobody" to “most people." These formats are consistent with the notion that

it is the range of behaviors that is of interest, not

the quantity of some underlying trait that purportedly causes the behavior. In other words, the FIRO-B instrument is attempting to measure not

A FIRO-B scale was constructed for each of the six

"how much

patterns that represent combinations of the three need areas (Inclusion, Control, and Affection) with the two behavioral dimensions (Expressed

but rather how often and with how many people

and Wanted). These patterns were not believed to represent quantities of needs or behaviors, but rather the frequency and range of behavior that the respondent sees as more or less characteristic

the person seeks to satisfy his or her Inclusion

need.

Guttman Scaling The six scales of the FIRO-B constructed

using

known as

Guttman

of how he or she behaves. This has three impli-

cations for how the

FIR0-B

instrument was

constructed:

When items are written

Guttman

to be consistent with

scaling procedures, the items re ect

ity) a person engages in the behavior (the Items and Scoring section of this manual lists

for use in the measurement of attitudes, an example will be taken from that domain. Consider a

the exact response options).

scale designed to re ect the range of behaviors a

person might have about the issue of individual rights. An ordered series of items designed to tap increasing levels of intensity about this issue might

look like the following: • My individual rights are important to me.

established using a technique called Guttman

scaling (discussed in the Guttman Scaling sec-

• I would vote to retain my individual rights.

tion of this chapter).

19• fl

1974).

increasing intensity or dif culty of acceptance.

• The items are ordered and the scoring cutoffs

fi

technique

(Guttman,

Because the technique was originally developed

appear repetitive.

fl

measurement

scaling

quency) and with how many people (selectiv-

resent subtle differences in behavior and thus

fi

a

instrument were

• The instructions ask about how often (fre-

• The items are written in such a way as to rep-

fi

of an Inclusion need a person "has,"

fi

fi

fi

Technical Guide

• I would campaign to maintain my individual rights.

•I wouldactively campaigntomaintainmy individual rights.

• I would ght for my individual rights. • I would be prepared to use violence to defend

my individual rights.

changes in wording are slight, the items appear

repetitive. In fact, some of the item content is even repeated on the scale, so that the person has the

opportunity to indicate both the frequency and the selectivity with which he or she behaves

regarding this need. Finally, in a perfect Guttman scale, a person

who agrees with any "higher-level" or more intense statement will also agree with all of the

wording. Response categories (ranging from, say, "never" to "always") would add another tool for

"lower-level" or milder statements that are ordered below it. Conversel, once a respondent stops agreeing, he or she will no longer agree with any item higher in the hierarchy. Thus, in the individual rights example, a person who said "I would actively campaign to maintain my individual rights" would also presumably say "I would cam-

ordering.

paign to maintainmy individualrights" and I

Now consider an example from the Expressed Affection scale of the FIRO-B instrument. There is the following series of items (ignoring, for the purposes of this example, the reverse-worded and keyed items on this scale):

would vote to retain my individual rights" and "My individual rights are important to me." In the context of the FIRO-B instrument, a person who says "I try to get close and personal with people" will also presumably endorse all of the items

In this example the items are clearly ordered,

beginning with one that most people (at least in Western cultures) would endorse and ending with one that few would endorse. This ordering was accomplished solely by slight changes to item

• I try to be friendly to people. I try to have close relationships with people.

• I try to haveclose, personalrelationships with people.

• I try to get close and personal with people. The content in the

rst two items in the series

moves from "friendly" to "close." Then "personal" is added to “close." Finally the verb changes from "have"

to the more active

"get." Because the

below it, down to "I try to be friendly to people. Put another way, the technique attempts to order items and construct scoring in such a way as to

nd the point or threshold at which a person will reject an item. When scales are created in this manner, tradi-

tional psychometric techniques for determining the reliability of the scale are usually supplemented by additional methods in order to ensure reproducibility. These are described in the Reliability and Validity chapters in this manual.

20•

NORMS

A

national sample of about 3,000 adults (those over 18 years of

those who returned the survey forms, whereas Black males tended to be underrepresented.

Although national random surveys often yield an

age) was collected in 1997 as part

adequate representation of minority group mem-

of the revision of the MBTI instrument

bers, such persons were not as well represented as

(Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, and Ham-

was hoped for in this study. Apparently, members

mer, 1998). The samnpling was conducted

of minority groups are less likely to complete psychological instruments than they are to complete

using a

procedure

political or other sociological surveys. Further-

dialing of tele-

more, the FIRO-B items were printed last in a

phone numbers in the United States. To

very long survey and thus were less likely to be

based on

strati ed

sampling

random-digit

increase the chances that the sample was

completed by everyone, but apparently especially

by members of minority groups.

representative, calls were made during

Table 7 shows the demographic characteristics

the day, in the evening, and on weekends;

of the national sample compared to the U.S. cen-

if there was no answer, the number was

Sus. The characteristics of the sample did approximate those of the U.S. population, and the sample

dialed again twice at

is therefore

different

times.

Those who answered the phone were

useful as a norm

group and as a base

for many analyses that will be reported later.

given a brief explanation of the study and

if they agreed to participate were sent a

TABLE 7• CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

research form containing MBTI items, FIRO-B items (the items were grouped

by instrument; they were not intermixed),

Group

Sample

Census

Males

1,404

46.3%

49.0%

tions. The goal was to have a sample that

Females

1,630

53.7%

51.0%

modeled

White

2,686

91.7%

80.3%

Black

139

4.7%

Other ethnic groups

89

0.5%

and over two dozen demographic ques-

the U.S.

adult

population,

according to the 1990 U.S. census, on

gender and ethnic group. Results women

indicated,

tended to be

however,

that

White

overrepresented

among

• 21• fi

National

12.19

7.6%

Technical Guide TABLE 8

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS IN THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

By Ethnic Group Table 9 also shows means and standard deviations

Scale

Total U.S. Sample

of FIRO-B scores for Blacks and Hispanics who

(n= 3,091)

were part of the national sample. Unfortunately, the sample size for each group is small and proba-

M

SD

Expressed Inclusion

3.23

2.22

Wanted Inclusion

2.26

3.09

Expressed Control

1.96

2.33

Wanted Control

2.78

2.01

Expressed Affection

3.51

2.24

Wanted Affection

4.64

2.28

Total Expressed

8.69

4.90

mean scores of Blacks are lower than mean scores

Total Wanted

9.68

5.35

Total Incusion

5.49

4.71

for the total sample (who are primarily Whites) in all categories except Expressed Control, for which

Total Control

4.74

3.05

ple. This indicates that the Blacks who responded

Total Affection

8.15

4.04

to this survey report less frequent and/or more selective behaviors designed to meet interpersonal

Overall Need

18.38

9.09

bly not representative of the group in the population. These data are included in the table, however,because they are both important and rare for the FIRO-B instrument. Further samples of ethnic groups are needed. Additional information can be found in the Ratings of Managers section of this manual. Although signi cance tests were not conducted for either group for the reasons stated above, examination of the able shows that the

the means are the same as those of the total sam-

needs. The scores of Hispanics present the opposite picture, with means on all scales except wC greater than those of the total sample. By Education

The means and standard deviations for the entire national sample are shown in Table 8. These data are shown graphically in Figure 1. The needs

with by far the highest means in the national sample are the Affection needs, followed by Inclusion and then Control. The eC need is the lowest. On average, people tend to have slightly Wanted than Expressed needs.

higher

By Gender

shown in Table 10. These data are graphed in

Figure 2. Those with higher levels of education generally have higher interpersonal needs than those at lower educational levels, especially for el, wl, and eC. The exception is wC, where those with higher levels of education have the lowest

need for wC of any group. It is interesting to note also that those with a technical school education

Table 9 shows the norms for men and women in

have the highest need for wC and the lowest for

the national sample. The means were compared

eA and wA. People with a technical education may

using t-tests, whose values and signi cance are

shown in the last column of the table. On average, women have signi cantly higher means on el, wC, eA, wA, Total Wanted, Total Inclusion, Total Affection, and Overall Need. Men score signi cantly higher on eC and Total Control, the latter due primarily to the large difference on eC.

Means and standard deviations of FIRO-B scores by educational level in the national sample are

end up in non-people-oriented jobs.

By Age

Means and standard deviations for age groups in the national sample are shown in Table 11 and

graphed in Figure 3. Needs for eC, wl, el, and eA

fi

fi

fi

fi

22•

Norms Mean FIR0-8° Scores for the Total National Sample, Blacks, and Hispanics

Figure 1

6

5

Total Sample

.--.

4

Blacks

Hispanics

-----.

0

el

TABLE 9•

eC

W

e

WC

WA

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR BLACKS, HISPANICS, MEN, AND WOMEN IN THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

Blacks

Hispanics

Men

Women

T-test

(n= 133)

(n= 102)

(n =1,363)

(n =1,574)

forGender

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

t

el

3.11

2.18

3.70

2.22

3.03

2.21

3.41

2.21

4.61""

wl

1.75

2.85

2.89

3.56

2.22

3.07

2.33

3.11

-1.02

el

1.96

2.17

2.26

2.33

2.38

2.51

1.62

2.12

WC

2.01

143

2.48

1.94

2.63

1.92

2.90

2.05

eA

3.11

2.37

3.78

2.20

3.29

2.22

3.71

2.24

-5.12**

WA

4.04

2.29

4.68

2.45

4.42

2.43

4.86

2.13

-5.18"

Total Expressed

8.18

4.88

9.75

4.76

8.70

5.04

8.74

4.77

-.22

Total Wanted

7.80

4.98

10.05

5.99

9.23

5.39

10.09

5.30

4.1T"

Total Inclusion

4.86

4.64

6.59

5.16

5.25

4.68

5.74

4.74

-2.83*"

Total Control

3.97

2.70

4.75

3.20

5.01

3.04

4.52

3.00

4.36*

Total Affection

7.14

4.19

8.46

4.14

7.71

4.14

8.57

3.90

-5.78"

Overall Need

15.98

9.12

19.79

9.81

17.97

9.19

18.83

8.95

-2.58*

Scale

Source:* p