International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
Psychometric Correlates of
FIRO-B Scores: Locating the
FIRO-B scores in personality
factor space
Adrian Furnham
Department of Psychology, University College, London, UK. a.furnham@ucl.ac.uk
This paper investigated the relationship between the six Fundamental Interpersonal
Relations Orientation (FIRO)-B scales, the Big Five Personality traits assessed by the
NEO PI-R, the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) and two measures of cognitive ability
(Watson Glaser; Graduate and Managerial Assessment). It examined the concurrent and
construct validity of the measure in various adult groups attending assessment centres in
order to locate the FIRO-B dimensions in established personality factor space. The FIRO-B
was consistently correlated with Extraversion, though analysis at the primary factor
(facet) level showed many traits from all five factors were strongly correlated with the six
FIRO-B scores. Regressing the six FIRO-B facets onto each of the Big Five in turn showed
all were significant particularly for Expressed Inclusion and Wanted Control. The second
study also showed considerable and logical overlap between the six FIRO-B scales and the
11 dysfunctional personality strategies as measured by the HDS. There were also strong
correlational patterns for the Cautious, Reserved, Colourful and Dutiful type disorders.
The third study showed the FIRO-B was statistically associated with both cognitive ability
tests though it only accounted for small percentages of the explained variance. Expressed
Control was the most consistently correlated of the intelligence test scores. Despite the
fact that many explicable associations were found between the FIRO-B and other
measure the effect sizes were not large. Thus only 4% of the trait facet scores and
4.5% of the HDS showed medium effect sizes. Results are discussed in terms of the
usefulness and possible discriminant validity of the instrument for use in selection and
assessment.
1. Introduction
I
t is now almost 50 years since the publication of the
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation
(FIRO) scales. In 1958 Schutz published FIRO: a three
dimensional theory of interpersonal behaviour. Over
the years both the theory upon which it was based and
the instrument itself has been updated (Schutz, 1992).
Further because of its popularity especially with organizational psychologists and management consultants in
Great Britain and elsewhere in the English speaking
world it has been standardized for use in Great Britain
(Leigh, Cook, Kendall, & McHenry, 1997; Warr, Miles, &
Platts, 2001).
Despite its relative obscurity for academic personality
theorists and psychometricians it remains used in clinical
(Lee, 1996; Poorman & Seelau, 2001; Turner & Mayr,
1990; Youngs, 2004) and organizational (Fletcher & Baldry,
2000; Hill, 1974; Fisher, Macrosson, & Walker, 1995;
Sellick, 1991; Willcoxson & Chatham, 2006) settings.
Schutz’s (1958) theory is based on the assumption
that ‘people need people’, and that all individuals seek
& 2008 The Author. Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA
Psychometric Correlates of FIRO-B Scores
to establish compatible relationships with other individuals in their social interactions. The various measures
that emerged from the theory are called the FIRO
Awareness Scales and were designed primarily to help
individuals with their self-awareness and of understanding their relation to other people (Schutz, 1978). Indeed
the measure has been used to study self-awareness in
the context of multi-source feedback (Fletcher &
Baldry, 2000).
The FIRO theory identifies three dimensions concerned with an individual’s typical interpersonal behaviour. The measure however appears to be unique in
that a person receives two scores for every dimension:
the extent to which a person expresses, manifests or
shows a particular behaviour (that is the extent to
which it is overt and observable) and the extent to
which a person wants from other people a particular
class of behaviours. The measure therefore allows
for the possibility of measuring a difference or
disparity score. The theory asserts that high
difference scores lead to conflict for each of the three
dimensions.
The measure is theoretically based on people’s fear
of rejection, failure and intimacy: the three dimensions
measured by this test. The theory asserts that striving
for compatibility in interactions, leads to the development of three primary interpersonal needs that must be
satisfied. The first is the need for inclusion, which is a
need to maintain a relationship with other people, to be
included in their activities, or to include them in the
individual’s own activities. All individuals seek to belong
to a group, but at the same time they want to be left
alone. There is always a trade-off between tendencies
toward introversion and extraversion. Therefore, individuals differ in their relative need strength on two
aspects of the need for inclusion: the need to include
others, or Expressed Inclusion, and the need to be
included by others, or Wanted Inclusion.
A second fundamental interpersonal need, according
to Schutz (1958), is a need for control: a need to maintain
a satisfactory balance of power and influence in relationships. All individuals supposedly need to exert
control or direction over other people, while also
remaining independent from them. They also feel the
need to be controlled, directed or structured by
others, but at the same time to maintain their freedom
and personal discretion. Individual differences arise,
therefore, in the need to control others, or Expressed
Control, and the need to be controlled by others, or
Wanted Control.
A third need, according to the model, relates to
affection, or the need to form close personal relationships with others. This need is not restricted to physical
affection or romantic relationships, but includes needs
for warmth, intimacy and love. All individuals need to
form close, personal relationships with other people,
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
31
but at the same time want to avoid becoming overcommitted or smothered by them. There is a trade-off
between high affiliative needs and high independence
needs. Individuals therefore vary in their needs for
Expressed Affection towards other people and for wanted
affection to be expressed towards them.
The FIRO-B thus yields six scores: Wanted and
Expressed Inclusion, Wanted and Expressed Control
and Wanted and Expressed Affection. The original
manual (Schutz, 1978) and the ‘clinical manual’ (Ryan,
1977) offer an interpretation within each dimensions as
well as the overall pattern of the six scores described as
common and unique profiles. Furthermore the measure
maybe unique in providing a formula to apply to dyad or
group scores to assess compatibility. Ryan, Maguire, and
Ryan (1970) noted that the total of the expressed and
wanted scores is called the social interaction index which
is the overall interpersonal need level. Individuals with
high scores have strong needs to interact with other
people. They are likely to be gregarious, friendly and
involved with others. Low scorers are more typical of
shy, reserved people.
Probably the greatest usefulness of the six scores lies
in analysing interpersonal compatibility – that is, in
matching one person’s scores with another person’s
profile. Individuals can be interpersonally incompatible
in various ways. Hence the FIRO-B’s popularity in
understanding team dynamics (Macrosson & Semple,
2001). A number of important studies were published
by Di Marco et al. in the 1970s (DiMarco, 1974;
DiMarco & Kaprick, 1974; DiMarco & Norton, 1974;
DiMarco, Kuehl, & Wims, 1975; Kuehl, DiMarco, &
Wims, 1975). DiMarco (1974) found that low incompatibility scores result in more favourable attitudes of
subordinates toward managers. Obradovic (1962)
found that teacher attitudes are more favourable
towards students when compatibility scores are high.
Hutcherson (1963) found that students achieve higher
levels in classes when compatibility with the teachers is
high. DiMarco et al. (1975) found FIRO scores logically,
but modestly, related to leadership style. Kuehl et al.
(1975) found strong significant correlations between
leadership style (specifically consideration and structure) and all the six FIRO dimensions. Friends have also
been found to be chosen more often from among those
with compatible scores.
There is also evidence that groups composed of
compatible individuals are more satisfying for members,
and more effective, than groups composed of incompatible individuals. Reddy and Byrnes (1972) and others
(Shalinsky, 1969; Schutz, 1958) found more interpersonal attraction among members, more positive group
climate, more co-operative behaviour on tasks, more
productivity in accomplishing tasks, faster problem
solving, fewer errors in solving problems, and less
hostility among members.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
32
Researchers interested in using new instruments are
naturally interested in the psychometric properties of
the instrument. The manual of the test (Schutz, 1988)
reports numerous concurrent validity studies, but relatively few construct validity studies. Various reviewers
have sought to discover the concurrent validity or
overlap between the FIRO-B and other measures like
field dependence (McRae & Young, 1990), adaptiveinnovative cognitive style (Tullett & Davies, 1999) and
team role preferences (Fisher, Macrosson, & Semple,
2001). However, this research effort has been piecemeal and non-systematic. The test manual reports good
test–retest reliability, although there remains serious
doubt about the internal reliability of the measure
(Hurley, 1989, 1992). Mahoney and Stasson (2005)
have, however, reported highly satisfactory Cronbach’s
a scores in excess of .83 for all six scales.
Reviewers have pointed to a number of problems
with the measure. These include low internal reliability
(Furnham, 1996; Salminen, 1988), overlap and lack of
independence of the six FIRO-B scales (DiMarco et al.,
1975) problems of social desirability (Salminen, 1988)
but also low correlations with other measures assessing
very similar constructs (Floyd, 1988; Hurley, 1989).
From a research perspective many studies consider
FIRO-B scores as trait dimensions. There remain numerous popular instruments to measure traits based on
different theories, however, most new trait constructs
need to be located in personality factor space which is
now considered to be the Five Factor Model (Petrides,
Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). Indeed Furnham (1996)
reported 10 studies all examining the relationship
between the Big Five (as measured by the NEO-PI)
and other well established and well-used measures of
personality including the 16PF, CPI, EPPS and EPQ. This
paper reports three studies that attempt to assess the
relationship between the six FIRO-B scores and personality as well as cognitive functioning. Indeed these
three studies are a direct attempt to examine the
concurrent and construct validity of the measure by
examining its relationship to other well established and
possibly psychometrically superior measures.
2. Study 1: relationship with the Big
Five
Despite some controversy (Eysenck, 1947, 1978, 1992)
there is remarkable agreement among personality
theorists in the validity of the Five Factor Model of
Personality (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1988, 1992;
McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1989a, 1989b; De Fruyt &
Salgado, 2003; Matthews & Deary, 1998). Further there
is increasing agreement, and data, to show personality is
important at work (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert,
2005). The Eysenckian measure has three superfactors
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
Adrian Furnham
which Eysenck (1992) maintained, in lay language, assess
the extent to which people moved towards (Extraversion), away from (Neuroticism) or against (Psychoticism) others. He also argued that advocates of the FFM
erroneous split Psychoticism (or tough-mindedness)
into three factors namely Openness, Disagreeableness
and low Conscientiousness. However, the FFM model
appears to be accepted by most personality researchers
(Furnham, 2007).
The Five-Factor Model has been criticized for its lack
of theoretical explanations on the development and
nature of the processes underlying some of its personality factors, particularly Openness, Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness (see Matthews & Deary, 1998 for a
detailed discussion). Yet researchers seem to agree on
the existence of five main personality dimensions as
well as on the advantages of assessing these dimensions
through the NEO-PI-R.
According to the Five Factor Model, there are five
higher-order personality traits (or factors), namely
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience,
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Table 2 presents
the complete NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) super
and primary traits also known as domains and facets.
The first main personality trait is Neuroticism and can
be described as the tendency to experience negative
emotions, notably anxiety, depression and anger.
Furthermore, Neuroticism finds its equivalent or similar expression in the Anxiety of Cattell’s model (Cattell,
Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970). Neurotic individuals can be
characterized for their tendency to experience anxiety,
as opposed to the typically calm, relaxed nature of
stable (low Neuroticism) personalities. It is probable
that high Neuroticism scores would be correlated
positively with high Wanted Control and Affection.
The second major personality dimension is Extraversion. This factor refers to high activity (arousal), the
experience of positive emotions, impulsiveness, assertiveness and a tendency towards social behaviour
(Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 2000). Conversely,
low Extraversion (introversion) is characterized by
rather quiet, restrained and withdrawn behavioural
patterns. It is most likely Extraversion correlates significantly positively with both Inclusion scores.
A third dimension, namely Openness to Experience,
derived from the ideas of Coan (1974), and represents
the tendency to be involved in intellectual activities, and
experience new sensations and ideas (Busato et al.,
2000). This factor is also referred to as Creativity,
Intellect or Culture and Tender-mindedness or Affection. It comprises six scales, namely fantasy, aesthetics,
feelings, actions, ideas, and values. In a general sense,
Openness to Experience is associated with intellectual
curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, vivid imagination, behavioural flexibility and unconventional attitudes. People
high on Openness to Experience tend to be dreamy,
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Psychometric Correlates of FIRO-B Scores
imaginative, inventive and non-conservative in their
thoughts and opinions (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Poets
and artists may be regarded as typical examples of high
Openness scorers (McCrae & Costa, 1989a). This factor
seems unrelated to the six FIRO dimension scores.
A fourth factor, Agreeableness (also known as Sociability), refers to friendly, considerate, and modest behaviour.
This factor is associated with a tendency towards friendliness and nurturance (Busato et al., 2000). It comprises the
subfacets of trust, straighforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tendermindedness. Agreeable people
can thus be described as caring, friendly, warm and tolerant
(Costa & McCrae, 1992). It is probable Agreeableness is
correlated positively with both Affection scores and
negatively with Expressed Control.
Finally, Conscientiousness is associated with responsibility and persistence (Busato et al., 2000). This factor
includes the minor dimensions of competence, order,
dutifulness, achievement-striving, self-discipline and deliberation. Conscientious individuals are best identified
for their efficiency, organization, determination and
productivity. This dimension of personality may therefore be associated with differences in performance. It is
probably that Conscientiousness is modestly but positively correlated with Expressed Control.
The FIRO-B is primarily aimed at measuring a person’s
approach to interpersonal relations. Pincus, Gurtman,
and Ruiz (1998) tried to integrate interpersonal circumplex model of Wiggins (1996) with the FFM model. They
found some evidence of convergent validity but that
‘transitive autonomy-granting’ or letting others do their
own thing was unrelated to the FFM. They indeed
recommend attempts to ‘understand the interpersonalness of presumed non-interpersonal traits’ (p. 1642)
which is part of the aim of the first study.
More recently White, Hendrick, and Hendrick
(2004) explored the relationship between the Big Five
traits and three measures of relationships. They found
Neuroticism negatively, and Extraversion positively,
related to relationship satisfaction and intimacy. Three
things are clear from this study. First, overall correlations were modest and never over r ¼.40 (N ¼ 196).
Second, Openness seemed unrelated to all the relationship variables measured. Third, as the authors comment, personality variables do influence relationships
and ‘should not be overlooked or underestimated’
(p. 1528). Indeed they recommend that these links
are further investigated which is done in the first study.
Few studies have looked at the overlap between the
FIRO-B and the Big Five Scores. Furnham (1990) found
four of the traits correlated with the FIRO-B but most
correlations were modest. Extraversion was positively
significantly correlated with five of the six FIRO-B
measures (see Table 1) and Conscientiousness with
none. More recently Mahoney and Stasson (2005)
reported a correlational study comparing the FIRO-B
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
33
and 44-item measure of the Big Five with satisfactory
internal reliability. The participants were 192 American
students. The results showed Expressed Inclusion was
positively correlated with Extraversion and Agreeableness, Wanted Inclusion with Extraversion, Expressed
Control with Extraversion, Wanted Control positively
with Neuroticism and negatively with Conscientiousness and Extraversion, Expressed and Wanted Affection
with Extraversion, Agreeableness and Openness. The
significant correlation ranged from r ¼.23 to .49. The
authors also reported the intercorrelation matrix for
the six FIRO-B scores. Many were highly intercorrelated (ro.60): thus Expressed Affection was highly
correlated with Expressed Inclusion, Wanted Affection
and Wanted Inclusion. Further Wanted Inclusion was
correlated very highly with Expressed Inclusion and
Wanted Affection. This led the authors to suggest that
the FIRO-B is actually a two dimensional measure which
taps into Dominance (Control) and Socio-Emotional
Affect (Inclusion plus Affection).
Dancer and Woods (2006) recently correlated the
FIRO-B scores with the Big Five as derived from the
16PF5. Their factor analysis of the FIRO-B suggested a two
factor solution. They found that 16PF5 factors of Anxiety,
Self-Control and Tough-Mindedness were distinct from the
FIRO scores but that the factors Social Extraversion, Social
Control and Social Independence were.
Many of the popular measures of personality (e.g.,
the MBTI) do not appear to measure Neuroticism,
regarded by all as a fundamental dimension of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1989a, 1989b). It would
appear, despite the interest in the clinical applications of
the FIRO-B, that it does not measure Neuroticism at
the domain or facet level. Second, following the correlation studies of Furnham (1996) and Mahoney and
Stasson (2005) that FIRO-B taps only into two of the
FFM factors. This inevitably limits its use as a comprehensive measure of personality.
Previous studies in this area have been almost
exclusively correlational. This study uses regressions
to test the hypotheses that the FIRO-B is essentially
only a measure of Extraversion and Agreeableness. It
aimed first to explore evidence for the threefold
dimensionality of the FIRO through factor analysis.
Second, it aimed to test probably theoretically derived
relationship between four of the Big Five factors and all
the six FIRO factors.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
There were a total of 2603 participants of whom 87%
were males. They were all middle to senior managers of
a multinational communication organization. They ran-
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
34
ged in age from their late 30s to their middle 50s (mean
age ¼ 40.3 years). This group completed three questionnaires.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. NEO personality inventory form S (NEO-PI; Costa &
McCrae, 1985)
The NEO Personality Inventory is based upon the fivefactor model of trait personality (Costa & McCrae,
1985). The five factors or dimension of personality
measured by this inventory are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness. Each single factor/domain consists
of six primary factors/facets which can be summed to
form a total domain score. The inventory is composed
of 240 self-descriptive statements to which respondents use a five-point scale in Likert formal anchored by
strongly agree and strongly disagree. The manual provides impressive evidence of both reliability and validity.
3.2.2. FIRO-B (Schutz, 1958)
This is a 54-item questionnaire: 24 questions are
completed on a six-point scale (from nobody to most
people) where respondents compare their behaviour
preferences and patterns with other people. The
remaining questions are completed on a six-point scale
(from never to usually) which describes usual patterns
of behaviour. The test manual provides impressive
evidence of the reliability of the measure and also
evidence of concurrent and predictive validity though
some studies have shown much lower internal reliability
(Furnham, 1996). However, recent work on British data
showed acceptable as ranging from .68 to .91 (Furnham
& Moyle, 2000).
3.3. Procedure
Participants were required to attend a middle management assessment centre where they completed the
questionnaires. The assessment was aimed at determining the suitability of each manager for promotion. Each
manager was given feedback on the results, including
how he/she related to the test norms as well as his/her
colleagues.
Because data collection was done at an assessment
centre it is possible that scores may be distorted
through impression management processes. This could
lead to defensiveness on the part of participants with
truncated scores and reduced variance. Examination of
both sets of scores suggests this may have occurred but
that there remained considerable variations in each
dimension of each measure.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
Adrian Furnham
4. Results
4.1. Preliminary analysis
The mean and standard deviations of the scores from
this sample were compared with manual-derived population norms. All scores were normally distributed and
no mean 4.8 of a standard deviation from population
norms. This suggested no systematic bias in this data.
Because of concerns about the factor structure of
the FIRO-B a correlational and factor analysis of the six
factors was performed. Correlations between the two
Inclusion scales was high (r ¼.51) as between the two
Affection scales (r ¼.56) yet much lower for Control
(r ¼.11). The two Inclusion scales tended to correlate
with the two Affection scales highly with the four
correlations between r ¼.29 and .42. The exploratory,
orthogonally rotated, factor analysis confirmed these
two results with two clear factors. The two Inclusion
(Wanted ¼ .70; Expressed ¼ .60) and the two Affection
(Wanted ¼ .81 and Expressed .82) scores loaded on the
first factor (eigen value 2.36) which explained 39.3% of
the variance. The two Control factors loaded on the
second factor (eigen value 1.12) which accounted for
18.66% of the variance. Therefore this does seem
evident of a two rather than a three factor model.
4.2. Main analysis
First correlations were computed. Table 1 shows
correlations between the Big Five and the six FIRO-B
scores. It also compares the results of another comparable study (Furnham, 1996). Three observations are
worth making. First, the results of the two studies tend
to be very similar suggesting the results are robust.
Second, only four of the 30 (7.5%) correlations are over
4.30 suggesting a very modest overlap between the
two questionnaires. Third, Extraversion seems significantly positively correlated with five of the six FIRO-B
scores while correlations between the other Big Five
measures are very modest. All of the hypotheses
tentatively suggested in the introduction were confirmed.
Table 2 shows the correlations at the primary factor
level. Expressed Inclusion is positively correlated with
all six Extraversion scores particularly gregariousness.
Wanted Inclusion is correlated less consistently with
Extraversion though with little else. Expressed Control
was correlated r4.20 with two Extraversion (E3, E4)
and one Conscientiousness trait (C4) and negatively
with four traits from Agreeableness. Wanted Control
seemed mostly correlated with four of the six Neuroticism traits and negatively correlated with five of the six
conscientiousness traits. Expressed Affection was positively correlated with five primary factor traits r4.20
(E1, E2, O3, A1 and A3). Interestingly, Wanted Affec-
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Psychometric Correlates of FIRO-B Scores
35
Table 1. Correlations between the Big Five (NEO-PI-R) and the FIRO-B (N ¼ 2603)
X
SD
X
SD
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
65.56
127.14
120.96
118.53
132.97
19.42
18.22
18.51
15.67
17.38
EI
WI
EC
WC
EA
WA
5.14
1.73
3.66
2.81
5.20
2.47
3.23
1.89
3.69
1.94
4.96
1.81
.12 (.18)
.45 (.47)
.15 (.07)
.06 (.05)
.13 (.14)
.04 (.06)
.30 (.42)
.12 (.16)
.06 (.08)
.04 (.09)
.08 (.02)
.26 (.26)
.03 (.17)
.30 (.11)
.12 (.00)
.17
.08
.00
.11
.17
.06 (.10)
.38 (.44)
.16 (.15)
.15 (.11)
.08 (.14)
.01 (.04)
.25 (.27)
.10 (.12)
.16 (.15)
.07 (.13)
(.24)
(.03)
(.13)
(.07)
(.02)
Note: Correlation r4.06, po.01. Correlations over .25 are shown in bold for emphasis. Results of Furnham (1996) (N ¼ 176) are in brackets. EI,
Expressed Inclusion; WI, Wanted Inclusion; EC, Expressed Control; WC, Wanted Control; EA, Expressed Affection; WA, Wanted Affection;
FIRO, Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation.
Table 2. Correlations between the 30 facets (primary factors) and the FIRO-B subscales (N ¼ 2593)
EI
WI
EC
.10
.07
.11
.15
.03
.11
.03
.06
.05
.07
.06
.05
.11
.07
.12
.13
.06
.20
WC
AE
WA
.16
.01
.17
.13
.09
.20
.03
.06
.05
.11
.07
.08
.00
.07
.01
.01
.06
.03
N1
N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
Anxiety
Anger-host
Depression
Self-confidence
Impulsiveness
Vulnerability
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
Warmth
Greg
Assertiveness
Activity
Excite-Sk
Post Emot
.39
.50
.24
.22
.26
.27
.27
.34
.12
.12
.20
.18
.03
.12
.43
.31
.12
.08
.02
.04
.17
.10
.00
.02
.45
.38
.17
.16
.17
.28
.34
.27
.08
.08
.12
.19
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Value
.04
.07
.15
.15
.10
.11
.06
.03
.11
.09
.07
.12
.00
.05
.09
.05
.01
.09
.07
.00
.01
.07
.07
.04
.08
.10
.22
.09
.08
.06
.06
.07
.16
.04
.01
.04
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Trust
Straight forward
Altruism
Compliance
Modesty
Td Minded
.16
.05
.19
.02
.06
.05
.15
.04
.16
.01
.06
.05
.01
.27
.11
.27
.28
.22
.07
.02
.02
.12
.14
.04
.21
.00
.29
.05
.06
.13
.19
.05
.26
.09
.04
.13
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
Competence
Order
Dutifulness
Achieve St
Self-discipline
Deliberation
.15
.05
.10
.15
.13
.00
.08
.00
.04
.03
.05
.01
.18
.01
.09
.24
.10
.06
.17
.09
.11
.17
.13
.11
.09
.05
.07
.07
.09
.00
.07
.03
.08
.02
.06
.03
Note: Correlations over .20 are shown in bold for emphasis. Correlations at r4.06, po.001. EI, Expressed Inclusion; WI, Wanted Inclusion; EC,
Expressed Control; WC, Wanted Control; EA, Expressed Affection WA, Wanted Affection; FIRO, Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation.
tion showed a similar pattern of correlations. Overall it
did seem apparent that the correlations between the Big
Five were similar when examining the Wanted and
Expressed dimensions of the three factors of the FIRO-B.
Table 3 shows the results of five multiple regressions
which have each of the Big Five as a criterion variable
and the six FIRO-B scales as the predictor variables. All
were significant. The first regression with Neuroticism
as the criterion variable, showed that those with high
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Wanted Control, but low Expressed Inclusion and
Expressed Control tended to have higher Neuroticism
scores. The regression with Extraversion as the criterion variable accounted for nearly a third of the variance.
Those with high Wanted and Expressed Inclusion, high
Expressed Control and Affection but low Wanted
Control tend to be more Extraverted.
The third regression was significant but did not
account for very much of the variance. Results
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
36
Adrian Furnham
Table 3. Results for the five multiple regressions
EI
WI
EC
WC
EA
WA
F(6, 2596)
Adj R2
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openess
b
b
t
b
17.22***
3.00**
11.05***
11.16***
10.79***
.34
.10
.05
.00
.05
.12
.02
17.80***
.04
t
.15
6.29***
.01
.42
.08
3.98***
.21
10.80***
.04
1.48
.04
1.78
28.39***
.06
.34
.06
.19
.18
.22
.00
199.67***
.32
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
t
b
b
4.34***
2.12*
.25
2.49**
4.79***
.72
.43
1.94*
.00
.26
.32
17.79***
.12
6.53***
.08
3.31***
.12
5.18***
73.83***
.14
t
t
.15
6.70***
.03
1.36
.11
5.79***
.22
11.00***
.03
1.12
.03
1.24
34.05***
.07
Note: ***po.001, **po.01, *po.05.
Table 4. Regression with Difference scores as the criterion variable and Big Five as predictors
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
F(5. 590)
Adj R2
Inclusion difference
Control difference
Affection difference
b
t
b
t
b
t
.03
.04
.02
.04
.04
2.48*
.01
1.19
1.44
.67
1.69
1.98*
5.32***
8.62***
1.52
18.73***
7.05**
.01
.15
.01
.00
.03
13.80***
.04
.72
6.72***
.52
.03
1.12
.11
.18
.03
.34
.14
131.16***
.20
Note: ***po.001, **po.01, *po.05.
suggested that those who Expressed their Affection and
Inclusion, and Wanted Inclusion, but not Control,
tended to be Open. The regression for Agreeableness
accounted for more of the variance (14%) and this
indicated that those with low Expressed but high
Wanted Control, those that both Expressed and
Wanted Affection and those that Expressed needs for
Inclusion tended to be agreeable. The final regression
showed three FIRO-B scores predicted Conscientiousness. Those with high Expressed Inclusion and Control
but low Wanted Control tended to be most Conscientiousness.
Finally the difference scores between Expressed and
Wanted in all three dimensions were calculated. Distributions of the difference scores were normal. Because Wanted was subtracted from Expressed a high
positive score meant higher expressed than wanted
while a negative score indicated the reverse. Table 4
shows that whilst all three regressions were significant
two accounted for only very small amounts of the
variance. Difference in Control, however, did yield a
highly significant results and indicated that Stable, Extraverted, Disagreeable, Conscientiousness people tended
to want more to Control others than being controlled
by them. The clinical interpretation manual describes the
high expressed, low wanted person as ‘mission impossible’: confident, with an intense need for recognition
and possible over compensating for some imagined
inferiority (i.e., they have fear of failure). On the other
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
hand this tends to be the profile of successful leaders in
industry (Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt, 2002).
Overall these results suggest three things. First, many
of the six FIRO scales are logically, significantly and
positively related to Extraversion. Second, the FIRO-B
scores seems essentially unrelated to three of the Big
Five dimensions namely Neuroticism, Openness and
Conscientiousness. Third, the FIRO-B is essentially an
instrument measuring two, rather than three dimensions. This accords with the conclusion of Mahoney and
Stasson (2005).
5. Study 2: relationship with ‘dark side’
factors
5.1. Dysfunctional interpersonal dispositions
The manual of the FIRO scale (Schutz, 1978) describes
research using the FIRO-B under five headings: application to normal populations; abnormal populations; in
the field of education; in the field of criminology and
with the aim of studying compatibility in various settings. The clinical interpretation provided by Ryan
(1977) divides each dimension into 9–10 scores depending with labels and interpretation attached. Thus
for the Control dimension there are those with low
scores on Expressed and Wanted called ‘Rebels’; high
Expressed, low Wanted called ‘Mission Impossible’; low
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Psychometric Correlates of FIRO-B Scores
37
Table 5. Description of the 11 dark side factors
HDS themes
Excitable
Sceptical
Cautious
Reserved
Leisurely
Bold
Mischievous
Colourful
Imaginative
Diligent
Dutiful
Moody and hard to please; intense but short-lived enthusiasm for people, projects, or things
Cynical, distrustful, and doubting others’ true intentions
Reluctant to take risks for fear of being rejected or negatively evaluated
Aloof, detached and uncommunicative; lacking interest in, or awareness of, the feelings of others
Independent; ignoring people’s requests and becoming irritated or argumentative if they persist
Unusually self-confident; feelings of grandiosity and entitlement; over-valuation of one’s capabilities
Enjoying risk taking and testing the limits; needing excitement; manipulative, deceitful, cunning and exploitive
Expressive, animated and dramatic; wanting to be noticed and needing to be the centre of attention
Acting and thinking in creative and sometimes odd or unusual ways
Meticulous, precise and perfectionistic, inflexible about rules and procedures; critical of other’ performance
Eager to please and reliant on others for support and guidance; reluctant to take independent action or to go
against popular opinion
HDS, Hogan Development Survey.
Expressed average Wanted called ‘Loyal Lieutenant’,
etc. These descriptions are indeed clinical and suggest
that the FIRO-B dimensions are tapping into interesting
and important areas of interpersonal dysfunctionality.
Indeed the use of the FIRO-B in understanding both
marital and work relationships suggests it is related to
‘abnormal’ as well as ‘normal’ behaviour.
The second study is concerned with the relationship
between the FIRO-B and a measure of ‘flawed interpersonal strategies’ namely the Hogan Developmental
Survey (HDS) (Hogan & Hogan, 1997). Ideas for this
measure were drawn from the literature on the personality disorders (Dyce, 1997; Oldham & Morris,
1991; Widiger, Costa, & McCrae, 2001; Widiger, Trull,
Clarkin, Sanderson, & Costa, 2002; Wiggins & Pincus,
1989), but the authors argue that their measure is a
non-clinical inventory to assess interpersonal behaviours that adversely affect performance at work.
They note that the HDS was designed to improve
interpersonal relations and identify personality characteristics underlying career derailment. The HDS manual
shows, as predicted, considerable overlap between the
HDS scales and the MMPI standard scales and personality disorder scales. Further factor analytic work
suggested three dimensions labelled moving – toward,
against and away from people based on Horney’s (1950)
model of flawed interpersonal tendencies.
Rolland and De Fruyt (2003) in a study of 130 French
Military found personality disorders (labelled maladaptive traits) did not predict negative affect beyond the Big
Five personality traits and believe they have no incremental validity in predicting (military) work behaviour.
An overview of the item selection guidelines can be
found in Hogan and Hogan (2001). As noted the HDS
has been cross-validated with the MMPI personality
disorder scales. Correlations (n ¼ 140) range from
r ¼.45 for Antisocial, to r ¼.67 for Borderline (Hogan
& Hogan, 2001). Fico, Hogan, and Hogan (2000) report
co-efficient a between r ¼.50 and .70, with an average
of r ¼.64 and test–retest reliabilities (n ¼ 60) over a
three-month interval ranging from r ¼.50 to .80 with an
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
average of r ¼.68. There were no mean-level differences
between sexes, racial/ethnic groups or younger vs. older
persons (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). This study will use the
HDS to measure the flawed interpersonal strategies and
it is now widely used in I/O research and practice.
Description of the factors are shown in Table 5.
Recently Furnham and Crump (2005) compared the
HDS scores with the NEO-PI-R Big Five scores. Results
revealed highest correlation between the HDI and NEO:
showing Neuroticism correlating with Excitable and Cautious; Introversion correlating with Cautious and Detached
and negatively with Colourful; Openness correlating with
Imaginative and Conscientiousness with diligent.
Given the description of the HDS it may be predicted
Reserved, Cautious and Excitable people would score
low on Expressed Inclusion while Mischievous individuals would score highly on Wanted Inclusion. It is also
predicted that Bold and Dutiful would both correlate
with the Control dimensions but in opposite directions:
Bold would be positive with Expressed and negative
with Wanted and Dutiful the other way around. Finally
it is predicted that Expressed Affection would correlate
positively with Colourful and Mischievous but negative
with Reserved and Cautious.
6. Method
6.1. Participants
There were 858 participants of which 743 were male.
The total population completed the HDS and the NEO
but only 431 participants completed all the measures of
which 365 were males and 66 were females. Most
(95.5%) were British but all had a good command of
English. In all 67.7% were senior managers, 25.3%
manager/supervisors and 8.1% specialists. They were
all middle/senior managers who were taking part in an
assessment centre sponsored by their organization.
They were a subsample of participants in the first study.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
38
Adrian Furnham
Table 6. Correlations between the 11 personality disorders and the six FIRO types partialling out social desirability
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Excitable
Skeptical
Cautious
Reserved
Leisurely
Bold
Mischievous
Colourful
Imaginative
Diligent
Dutiful
EI
WI
EC
WC
EA
WA
.20**
.03
.29***
.36***
.08*
.12**
.16***
.19***
.04
.05
.06
.05
.01
.07
.17**
.08
.06
.12**
.12**
.05
.06
.13*
.04
.16***
.20***
.00
.01
.31***
.14***
.17***
.08*
.07
.16***
.07*
.07*
.22***
.04
.10**
.17***
.06*
.09**
.06*
.00
.25***
.19***
.08*
.18***
.36***
.09*
.09*
.16***
.16***
.14**
.04
.08*
.08*
.08
.07
.22***
.01
.04
.02
.08*
.01
.08
.13**
Note ***po.001, **po.01, *po.05. EI, Expressed Inclusion; WI, Wanted Inclusion; EC, Expressed Control; WC, Wanted Control; EA, Expressed
Affection; WA, Wanted Affection; FIRO, Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation.
6.2. Questionnaires
Participants completed two measures.
6.2.1. HDS (Hogan & Hogan, 1997)
The HDS was explicitly based on the DSM Axis II
personality disorder descriptions, but it was not developed for the assessment of all the DSM disorders. The
HDS focuses only on the core construct of each
disorder from a dimensional perspective (Hogan &
Hogan, 2001, p. 41). An overview of the item selection
guidelines can be found in Hogan and Hogan (2001).
The survey includes 154 items, scored for 11 scales,
each grouping 14 items. Respondents are requested to
‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the items. The measure also
has a social desirability scale.
6.2.2. FIRO-B (Schutz, 1958)
As in Study 1.
6.3. Procedure
As before.
7. Results
Table 6 shows partial correlations between the 11
scales controlling for social desirability and the six styles
that emerge from the FIRO-B analysis. Three quarters
of the dark-side traits were significantly correlated with
Expressed Inclusion and three at r4.20: Cautious,
Reserved types tended to have low Expressed Inclusion
scores. Four of the 11 dark side traits correlated with
Wanted Inclusion: the strongest correlation indicating
that Non-Reserved people Wanted Inclusion. Seven of
the dark-side traits correlated significantly with Expressed Control; five at r4.20. They indicated that
those who had higher Expressed Control scores tended
to be Shrewd, less Cautious and Dutiful but more Bold,
Mischievous and Colourful.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
Nine of Wanted Control scores were significant,
however, they were nearly all mirror opposites of the
Expressed Control scores and with similar correlations.
They appeared to indicate that those who Want Control
were Dutiful and Cautious, but not Bold and Colourful.
Ten of the correlations between expressed affection and
the eleven scales. Those with high Expressed Affection
scores tended to be less Enthusiastic, Shrewd, Careful,
Independent, Focused, Arrogant, Charming, Dramatic,
Eccentric and Dependent. Only four of the Wanted
Affection scores were significant. Those with higher
Wanted Affection scores tended to be less Excitable,
Reserved, but more Dutiful, Bold and Colourful.
The 11 personality disorders were then subjected to
a VARIMAX rotated factor analysis (see Table 7). Four
factors emerged similar to those reported in the
manual (p. 1). Using the terminology of the manual
the first factor was labelled moving against people; the
second moving away from people, the third critical and the
fourth diligent. These four factors were then regressed
onto each of the six FIRO-B scales.
Table 8 confirms the above results. Those who ‘move
against people’ using HDS terminology tend to Express
Inclusion, Control and Affection and do not Want
Control. Those who ‘move away’ express little Inclusion or Affection and Want Control. Those who ‘move
towards’ Express Inclusion and Control but do not
Want Control.
Table 9 shows the results of the regression, where
the dark-side traits were predictor scores and the
FIRO-B difference scores criterion scores. The first
regression makes sense: Reserved individuals tend to
have a larger disparity between their Expressed and
Wanted score. The Control difference score was
however most interesting. The higher participants
scored on Bold, Sceptical and Excitable and the lower
they scores on Cautious, Dutiful and Leisurely the
more they wanted to be in Control in Social Settings.
As noted earlier in the preliminary analysis (Study 1),
when the FIRO-B is factor analysed two factors emerge
with both Inclusion scales on the one factor and all the
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Psychometric Correlates of FIRO-B Scores
39
other four on the second. Two-factor scores were then
computed and the 11 HDS items regressed onto them.
The Control factor was significant [F(11, 639) ¼ 2.47,
po.005, Adj R2 ¼ .03). The only significant predictor
was Bold (b ¼ .14, t ¼ 2.93, po.01)]. The second factor
also showed significant findings (F(11,639) ¼ 14.21,
po.000, Adj R2 ¼ .18). There were four significant
predictors: Reserved (b ¼ .33, t ¼ 7.99, po.001),
Dutiful (b ¼ .14, t ¼ 3.72, po.001), Mischievous
(b ¼ .10, t ¼ 2.24, po.05) and Diligent (b ¼ .09,
t ¼ 2.31, po.05).
If one compares Tables 1 and 6 it is clear that the
FIRO-B scores seem more consistently correlated with
dysfunctional interpersonal traits than ‘normal’ traits.
Second, it is the Control dimensions and disparity that
seems most closely related to the dysfunction traits.
Third, some dysfunction traits particularly Reserved,
Cautious, Mischievous and Colourful were significantly
correlated with at least two-thirds of the FIRO scales.
8. Study 3: relationship with cognitive
abilities
8.1. Cognitive ability
9. Method
There remains a great debate in psychology whether
there is, or not, any relationship between the two great
strands in differential psychology: intelligence (cognitive
ability measured by power tests) and personality (traits
measured by preference tests) (Moutafi, Furnham, &
Table 7. Varimax rotation of the 11 personality disorders
Colourful
Mischievous
Imaginative
Bold
Excitable
Cautious
Leisurely
Reserved
Diligent
Sceptical
Dutiful
Eigen value
Variance
.78
.77
.71
.62
9.1. Participants
A total of 2454 participants were recruited in this study.
Of these 818 were females. Their age ranged from 23
to 64, with a mean age of 42.1. They were all British
adults, tested by a business psychology consulting
company as part of an assessment exercise. Again,
those were a subsample of the total population.
9.2. Materials
.74
.74
.57
.51
.80
.56
2.65
24.13%
Crump, 2003). Many recent studies show replicable,
modest correlations but it is uncertain whether these
relationships are more to do with test-taking style or
actual performance (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2006). What, however, is clear is that cognitive ability is
a powerful and robust predictor of success at work.
This study looks at the overlap between the FIRO-B
and two ability measures. It appears as if no studies have
been done in this area: notably the association of tests
of abilities and those concerned with interpersonal
relationships. More recently Furnham (2006) showed
that some HDS scales were related to intelligence
namely that Cautious types scored higher on tests
and Diligent types lower on intelligence tests.
Given that the three dimensions of personality
(Openness, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness) that
are most related to cognitive ability test scores and are
least correlated with the FFM factors (see Study 1) it is
predicted that all correlations will be very modest.
However, given the norms from various occupational
groups specified in the manual it is predicted at Wanted
Control would be positively correlated with the cognitive ability test scores.
1.87
17.01%
1.17
10.65%
.82
1.09
9.92%
9.2.1. The Watson–Glaser critical thinking appraisal
(WGCTA; Watson & Glaser, 1980)
This is a timed (40 min) ability test assessing the ability
to define a problem, to select pertinent information for
its solution, to recognize stated or unstated assumptions, to formulate and select hypotheses, and to draw
valid conclusions. The test consists of five subtests: (i)
Table 8. Correlations between HDI and FIRO-factors
Hogan factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
Moving against
Moving away
Moving toward
Dutiful
FIRO scores
EI
WI
EC
WC
EA
WA
.22**
.24**
.18**
.14*
.10
.00
.10
.08
.35***
.03
.15*
.19**
.18
.20**
.19**
.24**
.23**
.27**
.10
.19**
.11
.13
.12
.16**
Note: ***po.001, **po.01, *po.05. EI, Expressed Inclusion; WI, Wanted Inclusion; EC, Expressed Control; WC, Wanted Control; EA,
Expressed Affection WA, Wanted Affection; FIRO, Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation.
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
40
Adrian Furnham
Table 9. Regressions with difference scores as criteria and the disorders as predictor scores
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
F (12, 618)
Adj
Excitable
Sceptical
Cautious
Reserved
Leisurely
Bold
Mischievous
Colourful
Imaginative
Diligent
Dutiful
SD
Inclusion difference
Control difference
Affection difference
b
t
b
t
b
t
.08
.05
.03
.12
.06
.03
.08
.02
.05
.00
.02
.05
2.98***
.04
1.63
1.07
.62
2.68**
1.43
.67
1.70
.25
1.06
.07
.51
1.01
.09
.11
.22
.04
.09
.26
.05
.03
.04
.03
.18
.06
13.87***
.20
2.01*
2.54**
4.79***
1.00
2.21*
5.93***
1.12
.56
.82
.78
4.67***
1.59
.00
.02
.08
.06
.07
.02
.06
.04
.07
.00
.09
.08
2.07*
.02
.06
.33
1.64
1.18
.48
.48
1.09
.81
1.65
.21
2.19*
1.93
Note: ***po.001, **po.01, *po.05.
The Inference test consists of three statements, each
followed by a number of proposed assumptions. Participants have to discriminate among degrees of truth or
falsity of the assumption based on the given data. (ii)
The Recognition of Assumptions test consists of five
statements, each followed by several proposed assumptions. Participants have to decide for each assumption
whether a person, in making the given statement, is
really making that assumption. (iii) The Deduction test
consists of six statements, each followed by several
assumptions. Participants have to determine whether
certain conclusions necessarily follow from the information given in the statements. (iv) The Interpretation
test consists of given short paragraphs, each followed
by several conclusions. Participants have to decide
whether the given conclusions logically follow beyond
a reasonable doubt from the information given in the
paragraph. (v) The Evaluation of Arguments test consists
of five questions, each followed by several arguments.
Participants have to distinguish between strong and
weak arguments. Studies on the WGCTA have provided evidence for the test’s reliability and validity
(Watson & Glaser, 1980).
9.2.2. Graduate and managerial assessment: abstract
(GMA:A; Blinkhorn, 1985)
This is a timed (30 min) high level test of abstract
reasoning ability, which measures the ability to think
conceptually, to discover underlying patterns within a
set of information, and to switch easily between contexts and level of analysis. The test is made up of 115
questions split into 23 groups of five questions. There
are two different scoring methods, the Lenient score
(GMA-L), which measures the total number of individual questions that are correct, and the Harsh score
(GMA-H), in which a mark is assigned for each group of
five questions that are answered correctly. The manual
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
provides evidence of the test’s reliability (a coefficients
ranging from .83 to .92) and validity (correlation of .50
with Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices; Blinkhorn,
1985).
9.2.3. FIRO-B (Schutz, 1958)
As before (see Study 1).
9.3. Procedure
As before (see Study 1).
10. Results
Table 10 shows correlations between the two intelligence tests and the six FIRO-B scores. Consistently,
Expressed Inclusion and Control correlated positively
with both test scores. Table 11 shows the results of the
multiple regression. They indicated three things:
although both were significant they tend to account
for small percentages of the variance (2–3%); second
results are reasonably comparable between the two
tests; third, people high on Expressed Control but low
on Expressed Affection seem to score most highly on
the intelligence test. The size of the correlations are
similar to many other studies in the area (Moutafi,
Furnham, & Paltiel, 2005).
11. General discussion
Nearly all personality tests are obliged to demonstrate
not only their reliability and construct validity but their
uniqueness (i.e., discriminant validity). Most concurrent
validity studies seek to establish correlations and over-
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Psychometric Correlates of FIRO-B Scores
41
lap with other established measures specifically discriminant, convergent and, ideally, incremental validity.
Despite the popularity of the FIRO-B in organizational consultancy, development and training it has not
been the focus of much psychometric assessment partly
because it is, quite rightly, seen as not so much a trait
measure but one interpersonal relationship preference.
This study sought to remedy this situation.
It is not surprising that there were numerous significant correlations between the NEO Big Five measure [at both superfactor (domain) and primary (facet)
factor level] and the six FIRO-B dimensions. The Big
Five claims to be a parsimonious yet comprehensive
measure of personality functioning. The central questions for a concurrent validity study is the logic and size
of the correlations.
This study replicated two others on a much small
population (Furnham, 1996; Mahoney & Stasson, 2005).
The size of the sample meant that nearly all the
correlations were significant but only six (a fifth) were
over r ¼.20. Interestingly five of these were correlations with Extraversion which may reflect the fact that
the FIRO is a measure of relationships. Indeed the
pattern of the data suggested that the FIRO scores are
positively correlated with Extraversion (and Openness
and Conscientiousness) but negatively correlated with
Neuroticism. It is perhaps unsurprising that many of the
Table 10. Correlations between the two cognitive ability test
scores and the six FIRO-B factors
Expressed Inclusion
Wanted Inclusion
Expressed Control
Wanted Control
Expressed Affection
Wanted Affection
GMA*
WGCTA**
.06*
.11**
.10 **
.03
.00
.04
.06*
.04
.14**
.00
.04
.00
Note: *N ¼ 2457, **N ¼ 1667. FIRO, Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation; WGCTA, Watson–Glaser critical thinking appraisal;
GMA, graduate and managerial assessment.
correlations between Neuroticism (four ro.10) and
Agreeableness (two ro.10) were so low.
However, the primary factor (facet) analysis of the
data was more interesting and probably more useful in
understanding the relationship between these two
measures. The data suggested that the FIRO-B measured neither Openness nor Conscientiousness confirming, in part, the work of White et al. (2004). It also
indicated that Wanted Control seemed not to fit in Big
Five personality space. Thus it is this dimension that
seems most unique in the in instrument. It is also the
dimensions consultants claim the most useful in understanding senior management functioning (Pendleton,
2003).
Certainly the regressions seem to indicate relatively
little ‘overlap’ between the two measures. Thus the
regressions of the six FIRO-B scales on the criterion
variables of the total Neuroticism, Openness and
Agreeableness score indicated that they accounted
for o10% of the variance. It was only Extraversion
that showed an overlap of about a third of the variance.
This appears to be a fairly consistent finding with the
FIRO-B. That is, it has low correlations with other
measures some of which have similar constructs. This
result could be read in either of two ways: it could be
seen as a good indicator that this measure of interpersonal relations behaviour captures unique variance.
It could also be read as indicating possible problems
with the theory or the measure suggesting low construct validity. Certainly the evidence from applied
studies suggest the former rather than the latter
reaction may be more appropriate.
What this study did not show was that the FIRO-B
had incremental validity in predicted any particular form
of behaviour specifically social interaction in teams or
interpersonal compatibility as measures of this were
not available. If it was possible to show incremental
validity it would certainly justify use of the measure in
specific contexts.
Certainly the Wanted Control dimension seems less
represented in the Big Five factor space. The manual
Table 11. Regressional results regression the two intelligence scores only to six FIRO-B scores
GMA
Expressed Inclusion
Wanted Inclusion
Expressed Control
Wanted Control
Expressed Affection
Wanted Affection
WGCTA
b
t
b
t
.01
.10
.08
.00
.07
.03
F(6, 447) ¼ 8.96***
Adj R2 ¼ .02
.44
4.24***
3.92***
.01
2.64**
1.11
.06
.02
.13
.01
.09
.01
F(6, 660) ¼ 7.83***
Adj R2 ¼ .03
2.08*
.70
5.47***
.41
2.83**
.43
Note: ***po.001, **po.01, *po.05. FIRO, Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation; WGCTA, Watson–Glaser critical thinking appraisal;
GMA, graduate and managerial assessment.
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
42
describes ‘the meaning’ of Wanted Control Scores as
someone who: ‘avoids surrendering control to others,
while, a person with a higher score reveals a relatively
greater readiness to abdicate. It is suggested that
abdication of responsibility and acceptance of control
results from a poor self-concept consisting of feelings of
hopelessness, worthlessness, and inadequacy. Yet it
could also indicate a means of obtaining gratification
of narcissistic needs in the form of pleasurable indulgence’ (Ryan, 1977, p. 16).
What this suggests is that this dimension of the FIRO
is more related to psychopathology and the dysfunctional interpersonal behaviours. However what this
study did indicate was that disparity/difference in control score is very strongly related to the Big Five factors
particularly Agreeableness. Indeed what is most unique
about the FIRO-B instrument is the possibility of
calculating a disparity score which examines the difference between wants/needs and overt behaviour, though
of course this is through a self-report measure.
The second study showed that three scales – Bold,
Colourful and Mischievous seemed closely related to
many of the FIRO-B dimensions. Equally some scales
e.g., Obsessive-Compulsive seemed less related to the
FIRO-B dimensions no doubt because the latter instrument is particularly sensitive to interpersonal or social
factors.
The results however show two clear patterns. First,
it is the Expressed facet of all three dimensions that is
more clearly related to the dysfunctional interpersonal
behaviours with the exception perhaps of Control.
Second, the different or disparity score between Expressed and Wanted is most clearly related to the
Control dimension. Where the difference is greatest
indicating a higher Expressed than Wanted score there
is some evidence of Bold and Sceptical and low Dutiful
and Cautious. This makes perfect sense and confirms
the earlier findings. It is important to note that the
dysfunctional interpersonal behaviours account for
around a fifth of the variance in the disparity score.
Note the clinical interpretation of one profile of the
Control dimension: ‘Persons with extremely high expressed Control scores and extremely low wanted
Control scores can and do make decisions and take
on many responsibilities. Their self-concept is one of
confidence and adequacy – so much so that they walk
into areas of responsibility where most ‘angels fear to
tread’. They have such an intense need for recognition
that they are compulsively driven to do well. Typically,
they are over-compensating for some real or imagined
inferiority by compulsively taking on large amounts of
responsibility, which they hope will earn recognition.
Since they avoid anxiety by maintaining superiority, they
are attracted to others who give them the recognition
they desire, and also to those who do not make
decisions for them or attempt to control them’. This
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
Adrian Furnham
presents an interesting paradox. They are drawn to
dependent persons but will hold them in contempt;
they will demand that these persons make decisions,
but if they do so, the decisions are quickly vetoed.’
(Ryan, 1977, p. 17).
It is clear why this profile might be of particular
interest in both clinical and business settings and why
the FIRO-B scales are indeed related to the personality
disorders. Successful business people tend to be bright,
and low on Agreeableness which are correlates of
Expressed Control (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2006).
The final study showed that FIRO-B scores are
related to intelligence but that they account for relatively little of the variance. The regressional results
indicate that where the results are consistent across
the two measures of intelligence there is evidence that
a high Expressed Control and low Expressed Affection
score is associated with higher intelligence. It should be
pointed out, however, that most of the studies that
examine this overlap of personality traits and intelligence show significant and explicable findings but
that the amount of variance accounted for is low
(Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Moutafi, 2004;
Moutafi et al., 2005).
It is interesting to note that Expressed Inclusion for
one test (WG) and Wanted Inclusion for the other
(GMA) were significant suggesting that Inclusion may be
a relevant variable to the acquisition of knowledge. This
remains to be replicated and explored.
Looking over the three studies as a whole it seems
that it is the Control dimension of the FIRO-B, particularly Expressed Control that is most consistently
linked with other traits, dysfunctional behaviours and
intelligence. Those with high Expressed Control scores
were Stable, Extraverted, Disagreeable, Conscientious
people. They may tend to being Bold as well as Sceptical
and Colourful but they are not Avoidant and Careful.
Further they tend to be intelligent.
All the correlates of Expressed control therefore
suggest it is this relatively unique dimension of the
FIRO-B that is the best predictor of success at work.
There is now considerable evidence in all three research areas – traits, disorders and intelligence – that
successful leaders have all the characteristics noted
above. Thus Judge et al. (2002) found leaders tended
to be Stable, Extraverted, Open and Conscientious.
Similarly Hogan and Hogan (2001) have profiled leaders
from a dark-side developmental perspective noting
Narcissism (Bold) the most common trait. Equally there
is now substantial evidence that intelligence is a requirement for success as a leader (Furnham, 2007).
People at work are usually neither dependent, nor
independent, but interdependent. They work within,
with and through teams and dyads. The FIRO-B represents an instrument focused on the relationship pro-
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Psychometric Correlates of FIRO-B Scores
cess. Its popularity in applied settings over the years
suggests it has something particular to offer to those
interested in diagnosing, counselling and training others.
Hence it deserves more psychometric assessment as
this study has attempted to do. What is most lacking
however is studies of predictive and incremental validity. Those interested in selection and assessment are
eager to show that a particular self-report test predicts
actual work-related outcomes. Further to justify the
use of any particular instrument, particularly used in
conjunction with other better established measures, it
is advisable and desirable to demonstrate incremental
validity, over other trait measures similar concepts.
Despite concerns with the dimensional structure of
the FIRO-B which suggests it is measuring two rather
than three dimensions (Mahoney & Stasson, 2005) it
does seem that the Control dimension (particularly
Expressed Control) is unique. Further this dimension
correlates with traits, interpersonal strategies and
cognitive abilities that have been demonstrated in
various studies and meta-analyses to be predictors of
individual success at work (Furnham, 2007).
References
Blinkhorn, S. (1985) Graduate and Managerial Assessment
Manual and User Guide. Dorchester: Dorset.
Busato, V., Prins, F., Elshout, J. and Hamaker, C. (2000)
Intellectual Ability, Learning Styles, Achievement Motivation and Academic Success of Psychology Students in
Higher Education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29,
1057–1068.
Cattell, R., Eber, H. and Tatsuoka, N. (1970) Handbook for
the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16FF). Champagne:
IPAT.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. and Furnham, A. (2006) Intellectual
Competence and the Intelligent Personality. Review of
General Psychology, 10, 251–267.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A. and Moutafi, J. (2004)
The Relationship Between Estimated and Psychometric
Personality and Intelligence Scores. Journal of Research in
Personality, 38, 505–513.
Coan, R. (1974) The Optimal Personality. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Costa, P. and McCrae, R. (1985) The NEO Personality
Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. and McCrae, R. (1988) From Catalogue to Classification: Murray’s Needs and the Five Factor Model. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258–265.
Costa, P. and McCrae, R. (1992) Four Ways, Five Factors
are Basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13,
653–665.
Dancer, L. and Woods, S. (2006) Higher-Order Factor Structures and Intercorrelations of the 16PF5 and FIRO-B.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14,
385–391.
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
43
De Fruyt, F. and Salgado, J. (2003) Applied Personality
Psychology: Lessons learned from the IWO field. European
Journal of Psychology, 17, 5123–5131.
DiMarco, N. (1974) Superior–Subordinate Life Style and
Interpersonal Need Compatibility as Determinants of Subordinate’s Attitudes Toward the Supervisor. Academy of
Management Journal, 17, 575–578.
DiMarco, N. and Kaprick, P. (1974) Relationships of Life Style
and Interpersonal Need Orientation. Journal of Psychology,
86, 13–15.
DiMarco, N., Kuehl, C. and Wims, E. (1975) Leadership Style
and Interpersonal Need Orientation as Moderators of
Changes in Leadership Dimension Scores. Personnel Psychology, 28, 210–218.
DiMarco, N. and Norton, S. (1974) Life Style, Organisational
Structure, Congruity and Job Satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 27, 581–591.
Dyce, J. (1997) The Big Five Factors of Personality and Their
Relationship to Personality Disorders. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 53, 587–593.
Eysenck, H.J. (1947) Dimensions of Personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Eysenck, H.J. (1978) The Development of Personality and
its Relation to Learning. In: Murray Smith, S. (ed.), Melbourne
Studies in Education. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne,
Australia. pp. 134–181.
Eysenck, H.J. (1992) Four Ways Five Factors are Not Basic.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–674.
Fico, J., Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2000) Interpersonal Compass
Manual and Interpretation Guide. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment System.
Fisher, S., Macrosson, W. and Semple, J. (2001) Control and
Belbin’s Team Roles. Personnel Review, 30, 578–588.
Fisher, S., Macrosson, W. and Walker, C. (1995) FIRO-B: The
power of love and the love of power. Psychological Reports,
76, 195–206.
Fletcher, C. and Baldry, C. (2000) A Study of Individual
Differences and Self-Awareness in the Context of MultiSource Feedback. Journal of Occupational and Organisational
Psychology, 73, 303–319.
Floyd, N. (1988) Interpersonal Orientation and Living Group
Preferences: A validity check on the FIRO-B. Psychological
Reports, 62, 923–929.
Furnham, A. (1990) The Fakeability of the 16PF, Myers–Briggs
and FIRO-B Personality Measures. Personality and Individual
Differences, 11, 711–716.
Furnham, A. (1996) The FIRO-B, the Learning Style Questionnaire and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Social
Behaviour and Personality, 11, 285–299.
Furnham, A. (2006) Personality Disorders and Intelligence.
Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 42–46.
Furnham, A. (2007) Personality and Intelligence at Work. London: Routledge.
Furnham, A. and Crump, J. (2005) Personality Traits, Types
and Disorders. European Journal of Personality, 19,
167–184.
Furnham, A. and Moyle, P. (2000). A Psychometric Evaluation of
the FIRO-B. Unpublished paper.
Hill, R. (1974) Interpersonal Needs and Functional Areas of
Management. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 4, 15–24.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
44
Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (1997) Hogan Developmental Survey
Manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Centres.
Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2001) Assessing Leadership: A view
from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9, 40–51.
Horney, K. (1950) Neurosis and Human Growth. New York:
Norlon.
Hurley, J. (1989) Dubious Support for FIRO-B Validity. Psychological Reports, 65, 929–930.
Hurley, J. (1992) Further Evidence Against the Construct
Validity of the FIRO-B Scales. Psychological Reports, 70,
639–640.
Hutcherson, D. (1963). Relationships Among Teacher–Pupil
Compatibility, Social Studies, Grades, and Selected Factors.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California,
Berkeley.
Judge, T., Bono, J., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M. (2002) Personality
and Leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
Kuehl, C., DiMarco, N. and Wims, E. (1975) Leadership
Orientation as a Function of Interpersonal Need Structure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 143–145.
Lee, R. (1996) FIRO-B Scores and Success in a Positive Peer
Culture Residential Treatment Programme. Psychological
Reports, 78, 215–220.
Leigh, V., Cook, M., Kendall, E. and McHenry, R. (1997). UK
Standardisation of the FIRO-B. Oxford Psychometric Forum.
Technical Report 2.
Macrosson, W. and Semple, J. (2001) FIRO-B, Machiavellianism
and Teams. Psychological Reports, 88, 1187–1193.
Mahoney, J. and Stasson, M. (2005) Interpersonal and Personality Dimensions of Behaviour: FIRO-B and the big five.
North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 205–216.
Matthews, G. and Deary, I. (1998) Personality Traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCrae, R. and Costa, P. (1985) Comparison of EPI and
Psychoticism Scales with Measures of the Five-Factor
Model of Personality. Personality and Individual Differences,
6, 587–597.
McCrae, R. and Costa, P. (1989a) Reinterpreting the Myers–
Briggs Type Indicators from the Perspective of the FiveFactor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 57,
17–40.
McCrae, R. and Costa, P. (1989b) The Structure of Interpersonal Traits: Wiggins circumflex and the five-factor
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
586–595.
McRae, L. and Young, J. (1990) Field Dependence and the
FIRO-B. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 493–494.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A. and Crump, J. (2003) Demographic
and Personality Predictors of Intelligence. European Journal
of Personality, 17, 79–94.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A. and Paltiel, L. (2005) Can Personality
Factors Predict Intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1021–1033.
Obradovic, S. (1962). Interpersonal Factors in the SupervisorTeacher Relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of California, Berkeley.
Oldham, J. and Morris, L. (1991) Personality Self-Portrait. New
York: Bantam Books.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008
Adrian Furnham
Ones, D., Viswesvaran, C. and Dilchert, S. (2005) Personality
at Work. Human Performance, 18, 389–404.
Pendleton, D. (2003). Using the FIRO in Consulting. Private
communication.
Petrides, K., Pita, R. and Kokkinaki, F. (2007) The Location of
Trait Emotional Intelligence in Personality Factor Space.
British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273–289.
Pincus, A., Gurtman, M. and Ruiz, M. (1998) Structural
Analysis of Social Behaviour (SASB). Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 1629–1695.
Poorman, P. and Seelau, S. (2001) Lesbians who Abuse their
Partners: Using the FIRO-B to assess interpersonal characteristics. Women and Therapy, 23, 87–105.
Reddy, W. and Byrnes, A. (1972) Effects of Interpersonal
Group Composition on the Problem Solving Behaviour of
Middle Managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56,
516–517.
Rolland, J.-P. and De Fruyt, F. (2003) The Validity of FFM
Personality Dimensions and Maladaptive Traits to Predict
Negative Affect at Work. European Journal of Personality, 17,
101–121.
Ryan, B. (1977) Clinical Interpretation of the FIRO-B. Paulo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ryan, B., Maguire, T. and Ryan, T. (1970) An Examination
of the Construct Validity of the FIRO-B. Journal of
Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 34,
419–425.
Salminen, S. (1988) Two Psychometric Problems of the
FIRO-B Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 63,
423–426.
Schutz, W. (1958) FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of
Interpersonal Behaviour. New York: Holt, RinehartWinston.
Schutz, W. (1978) FIRO Awareness Scales Manual. Palo Alto,
California: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Schutz, W. (1988) Guide to Element B. Muir Beach, CA: WSA.
Schutz, W. (1992) Beyond FIRO-B. Psychological Reports, 70,
915–937.
Sellick, K. (1991) Nurses’ Interpersonal Behaviours and the
Development of Helping Skills. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 28, 3–11.
Shalinsky, W. (1969) Group Composition as a Factor in
Assembly Effects. Human Relations, 22, 457–469.
Tullett, A. and Davies, G. (1999) Cognitive Style and Affect.
Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 479–485.
Turner, J. and Mayr, S. (1990) Interpersonal Types Among
Alcohol Abusers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46,
500–506.
Warr, P., Miles, A. and Platts, C. (2001) Age and Personality in
the British Population between 16 and 64 years. Journal
of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74,
165–199.
Watson, G. and Glaser, E. (1980) Watson–Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
White, J., Hendrick, S. and Hendrick, C. (2004) Big Five
Personality Variables and Relationship Constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519–1530.
Widiger, T.A., Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (2001) Proposals
for Axis II: Diagnosing personality disorders and the five
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Psychometric Correlates of FIRO-B Scores
factor model. In: Costa, P.T. and Widiger, T.A. (eds),
Personality Disorders and the Five Factor Model of Personality
(2nd edn). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 432–456.
Widiger, T.A., Trull, T.J., Clarkin, J.F., Sanderson, C. and
Costa, P.T. (2002) A Description of the DSM-IV Personality Disorders with the Five Factor Model of Personality.
In: Costa, P.T. and Widiger, T.A. (eds), Personality Disorders
and the Five Factor Model of Personality (2nd edn).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp.
88–99.
& 2008 The Author
Journal compilation & 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
45
Wiggins, J. (1996) An Informal History of the Interpersonal
Circumplex Tradition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66,
217–260.
Wiggins, J. and Pincus, A. (1989) Conceptions of Personality
Disorders and Dimensions of Personality. Psychological
Assessment, 1, 305–316.
Willcoxson, L. and Chatham, R. (2006) Testing the Accuracy
of the IT Stereotype. Information and Management, 43, 697–
705.
Youngs, D. (2004) Personality Correlates of Offence Style. Journal
of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 99–119.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 16 Number 1 March 2008