Examples of FIRO—B Item s
Dim ension Item C ontent
E xpressed I n c lu s io n I t r y to be w ith o th e r people
Wanted I n c lu s io n I l i k e people to in c lu d e me i n t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s
E xpressed C o n tro l I t r y to be dom inant when I am w ith p eo p le
Wanted C o n tro l I l e t o th e r p eo p le d e c id e what to do E x p ressed A f f e c tio n I t r y to be f r i e n d l y to people
Wanted A f f e c tio n I l i k e p eople to a c t f r i e n d l y tow ard me
I n th e fo r e g o in g c h a p te r s o f t h i s t h e s i s th e r e have been re p e a te d r e f e r e n c e s to p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s b e in g i n p l i c a t e d i n n u rs in g p e rfo rm an ce. C o n sid e rin g t h a t in p e r s o n a l i t y psychology a d i s t i n c t i o n betw een t r a i t and need i s n o t one t h a t can be s h a r p ly draw n, i t i s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t to in tr o d u c e a n e a s u re which i s p h rased i n t e r n s o f needs# W hile t r a i t d e s c r i p t i o n s c o n c e n tr a te on th e c u r r e n t s t a t u s o f perform ance l e v e l , w hereas needs em phasise th e k in d s o f f o r c e s which g iv e r i s e to an i n d i v i d u a l ’ s p u rp o s iv e b e h a v io u r , th e r e i s s t i l l c o n s id e r a b le o v e r lap# R e th lin g s h a f e r (1963) c o n s id e r s t h a t a lth o u g h p e r s o n a l i t y and m o tiv a tio n a l v a r i a b l e s a r e i n c o n tin u o u s i n t e r a c t i o n , i t i s s t i l l w o rth w h ile t o a tte m p t a d i s t i n c t i o n on th e b a s i s o f th e s t a b i l i t y of
th e fo rm e r, and f l u c t u a t i n g n a tu re o f th e l a t t e r # However, when i t comes to v a r i a b l e s su ch as i n t e r p e r s o n a l n e e d s , even t h i s k in d of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s d i f f i c u l t to m a in ta in a t a n o p e r a tio n a l l e v e l .
D e s c r ip tio n o f th e FIRO-B S c a le s
That th e th e o r y u n d e r d is c u s s io n was co n ceiv ed a s a g e n e r a l th e o ry o f p e r s o n a l i t y i s c l e a r f r o n th e ty p o lo g y shown i n Table V II—5» th e c o n te n t o f which i s ta k e n f r o n th e o r i g i n a l t e x t ( S c h u tz , 1958 p .6 0 ) , FIRO-B fo c u s e s on b e h a v io u r r a t h e r th a n f e e l i n g s ( i t i s to be h a v io u r t h a t th e B, i n th e t i t l e r e f e r s ) • W ith in each o f the th r e e need a r e a s th e q u e s ti o n n a ir e a t t e n p t s to a s s e s s th e b e h a v io u r which th e re s p o n d e n t t y p i c a l l y e x p re s s e s to w ard s o t h e r s , and a l s o th e n an n er i n w hich he w a n ts o th e r s to behave tow ard h i n . The t e s t y i e l d s s i x s c o r e s . F or each o f th e th r e e dim ensions - I n c lu s io n , C o n tro l, and A f f e c tio n - th e r e i s a s c o re f o r e x p re ss e d b e h a v io u r and a n o th e r f o r w anted b e h a v io u r, a l l h a v in g a ran g e o f z ero to n i n e . These s c a le s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y in d e p e n d e n t; in f a c t c o r r e l a t i o n s betw een th e n a r e to be e x p e c te d , b u t th e su b sc o re s do n o t co n b in e m e a n in g fu lly to a t o t a l s c o r e . They a r e b e t t e r p re s e n te d a s a p r o f i l e . The r e sponse f o r n i s c lo s e d , w iJ th e f i v e c h o ice p o in ts d i s t r i b u t e d f o r each ite m so a s to ta k e a cc o u n t o f th e p e rv a s iv e n e s s o f th e need w ith r e s p e c t to p e rso n s ( everyone - no one ) and o c c a s io n s ( alw ays — n e v e r )•
.J
TABLE VII-5
Typology Based on FIRO-B Measures
I initiate interaction with others
Low High
I High Undersocial Oversocial
want Social-compliant Social-compliant
to
INCLUSION be Undersocial Oversocial
in- Low Countersocial Countersocial
eluded
I try to control others
Low High
I High Abdicrat Autocrat
want Submissive Submissive
CONTROL to be
con- Low Abdicrat Autocrat
trolled Rebellious Rebellious
I try to be close and personal
Low High
I High Underpersonal Overpersonal
want Personal-compliant Personal-compliant
others to be
AFFECTION close Low Underpersonal Overpersonal
and personal with me
P e r s o n a l i t y a sse ssm e n t te c h n iq u e s so f a r have n o t d em o n strated h ig h ly g e n e r a liz e d b e h a v io u r a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s which a re immune to
s i t u a t i o n a l in f l u e n c e s , in c lu d in g th e c o n s t r a i n t s o f th e t e s t s i t u a t i o n i t s e l f . The m aintenance o f s ta n d a r d t e s t i n g c o n d itio n s o n ly m eets th e problem i n p a r t . The r e s e a r c h e r h as l i t t l e c o n tr o l o v e r r e c e n t o r c u r r e n t e x p e r ie n c e s o u ts id e th e t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n , and th e s e a r e l i k e l y to in f lu e n c e th e fram e o f r e f e r e n c e i n w hich a s u b j e c t p e r c e iv e s a q u e s tio n n a ir e ite m . Van d e r Veen and P isk e (i9 6 0 ) found s e l f - r a t i n g s to be prone to showing such i n f l u e n c e s , and th e r e i s no re a s o n to ex p e c t FIRO-33 t o be any l e s s v u l n e r a b l e . One assum es t h a t , where th e y o c c u r, th e e f f e c t s w i l l be random a c r o s s s u b j e c t s , and a c r o s s s i t u a t i o n s .
I t h as cone to be re c o g n iz e d t h a t v a l i d i t y i s n o t a g e n e r a l p r o p e rty of a t e s t , a more f r u i t f u l ap p ro ach b e in g to c o n s id e r v a l i d i t y in r e l a t i o n to s p e c i f i c p u rp o s e s . Schutz (1958) c i t e s e m p iric a l e v i dence w hich sp eak s f o r th e c o n c u rre n t v a l i d i t y o f th e t e s t . Most o f
th e l a t e r p u b lis h e d s t u d i e s which a r e r e le v a n t to d is c u s s io n of th e v a l i d i t y o f FIRO-B have used th e q u e s tio n n a ir e i n th e sane k in d o f
c o n te x t a s t h a t i n w hich i t was d e v e lo p e d , nam ely t h a t o f s n a i l groups ( e . g . T urk, 1961; Moos and S p e isn a n , 1962; Mann, 1967 ) • S n ith (1963) , i n lo o k in g a t d i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i o n e t r i c ra n k in g s i n r e l a t i o n to th e r a n k e r ’ s pred o m in an t o r i e n t a t i o n tow ard e i t h e r th e ta s k o r o th e r p e rs o n s , found t h a t FIRO—B' s c o r e s d id n o t c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y w ith ra n k in g c r i t e r i a , b u t t h a t th e y were s y s t e m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d to b e h a v io u r a s r a t e d by o th e r gro u p members. In a n o th e r s tu d y ( S a p o lsk y , 1965 ) th e i n s t i u n e n t was fo u n d to be u s e f u l i n m easuring m utual p e rc e p tio n s i n r e l a t i o n to p a t i e n t - t h e r a p i s t i n t e r a c t i o n and tr e a tm e n t outcom es.
The s c a le s w ere dev elo p ed w ith Guttman s c a le c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and in th e o r i g i n a l f o rn o f th e q u e s tio n n a ir e th e ite m s ap p ea re d in t h i s s c a le o rd e r so making th e t e s t a p p e a r to be v e ry h ig h ly s t r u c t u r e d .
I t was to o f f s e t p o s s ib le in p r e s s io n s o f a r t i f i c i a l i t y , o r u n r e a l i t y t h a t i n t h i s stu d y th e o rd e r of i t e n p r e s e n t a t i o n was random. With th e e x c e p tio n o f th e above m o d if ic a tio n ( which was assumed n o t to in flu e n c e th e v a l i d i t y ) th e t e s t was a d m in is te r e d a s d e s c r ib e d b y Schutz ( 1958, C h ap ter VI ) , B eing a q u e s tio n n a ir e which r e q u ir e s o n ly m inim al i n s t r u c t i o n s i t i s w e ll s u i t e d to a group s e t t i n g . In t h i s in s ta n c e i t was in tro d u c e d to s u b je c ts a s c o n c e rn in g ” you a s a