TO UNDERSTAND APPLICATION OF FIRO-B

AIM : To assess the interpersonal needs of an individual using the psychological test of
fundamental interpersonal relations orientation behaviour (FIRO-B) by Eugene R. Schnell and
Allen L. Hammer.

BASIC CONCEPT -

● Personality refers to the enduring characteristics and behavior that comprise a person's
unique adjustment to life, including major traits, interests, drives, values, self-concept,
abilities, and emotional patterns. Helps people better understand the factors that play a
role in personality. It also allows us to know more about how certain personality
characteristics affect behavior. For example, some traits are linked to higher levels of
happiness and well-being.

● FIRO-B, or Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior, is a

psychological assessment tool that measures interpersonal behavior and needs through
three key dimensions: Inclusion (the desire for social connection), Control (the preference
for influence in relationships), and Affection (the need for emotional closeness). It helps
individuals and organizations understand their interpersonal dynamics, fostering better
communication, reducing conflict, and improving teamwork and leadership by
identifying and addressing differences in these fundamental interpersonal needs.

● FIRO-B : The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation- Behavior (FIRO-B)

instrument was created in the late 1950s by William Schutz, PhD. It is a powerful
personality instrument which gives individuals objective insight into how they behave
toward others and how they want others to behave toward them and why. It creates
awareness of what they want from their relationships with others and how they express
their wants. Its interpretation can dramatically increase one’s understanding of behavior
in areas such as:
 ➢ how a person comes across to others, and why this may not be the way the person sees
her/himself or the impression s/he might want to make
➢ how and why conflict develops between well-meaning people
➢ how to understand one’s own needs, and how to manage them as one interacts with others

FIRO-B can be used to address a variety of issues including one-to-one relationships,

teamwork, career development, organizational culture, and leadership development.
When used properly, it provides individuals and teams with increased insight into and
appreciation of interpersonal behaviors. This in turn can lead to increased interpersonal
effectiveness and satisfaction in working with or relating to others. It enables them to
communicate more clearly, collaborate more effectively, and create a more productive,
harmonious group environment. The FIRO-B instrument can be used with individuals,
couples, and groups in any situation where insight into interpersonal behaviors may prove
useful. It can be used in organizations to

Identify organizational culture and its implications o Identify potential sources of conflict
between two cultures
Design leadership development programs
Increase the productivity of teams and identify the contributions of individual team
members

With a wealth of continuing research to validate its results, the value of the FIRO-B is
increasingly being acknowledged by professionals and clients alike in areas such as personal
development seminars, communication workshops, career development, etc.

● BACKGROUND OF FIRO-B : The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-

Behavior (FIRO-B) was created in the late 1950s by William Schutz (1958). Schutz
developed the FIRO-B theory to aid in the understanding and prediction of how high
performance military teams would work together. In 1952, as the head of the Team
Performance Section of the Navy Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., Schutz
sought to improve the performance of the shipboard Combat Information Center (CIC).
 The resulting research from the above assignment and a research contract at Tufts and
Harvard University resulted in the “FIRO-B instrument: A Three-dimensional Theory of
Interpersonal Behavior” (1958).
In developing the FIRO-B theory, Schutz began with the premise that “people need
people.” He first argued that, beyond a person’s core physiological needs (food, air, and
water), each individual has interpersonal needs that motivate behavior. Just as some
people need more food than others, some need more social contact. And, just as
insufficient amounts of food cause hunger and suffering, the wrong level of social contact
can cause interpersonal suffering and conflict. Schutz was focused on measuring people’s
levels of need in three defined interpersonal areas, viz. inclusion, control, and affection,
and highlighting where these needs were not being met. He used the term interpersonal to
indicate any interaction, real or imagined, occurring between people. He used the term
need to describe a psychological condition that, if not satisfied, leads to a state of
discomfort or anxiety. In addition to his own observations of group behavior, Schutz was
influenced by the psychological literature, including the works of Freud, Adorno, Fromm,
Adler and Jung, among others.

● INTERPERSONAL NEEDS : Schutz developed the FIRO-B instrument on the theory

that beyond our survival needs- food, shelter, and warmth- we each have unique
interpersonal needs that strongly motivate us. These needs relate to areas he called
Inclusion, Control, and Affection. Just as with our biological needs, we become
uncomfortable and anxious if our own unique “set point”, or set of psychic needs, is not
being met. Schutz used the term interpersonal to indicate any interaction, real or
imagined, that occurs between people. For example, a manager might delegate a task to
an employee through face-to-face conversation, by phone, or in a memo. This behavior
on the part of the manager constitutes an interaction and thereby expresses an
interpersonal need. Hence, the term interpersonal refers to relations that occur between
people as opposed to relations in which at least one participant is inanimate. The term
need was used by Schutz in a manner that was congruent with how biological needs are
commonly understood. It is defined in terms of a situation or condition of an individual
the non-realization of which leads to undesirable consequences. A need is a physical or
psychological condition of an individual that if not satisfied leads to a state of discomfort
or anxiety. To avoid this unpleasant outcome, people are motivated to take action to
satisfy their needs. However, individuals vary greatly in what constitutes satisfaction and
dissatisfaction and therefore in the level of interpersonal need experienced by each. The
FIRO-B instrument identifies three areas of interpersonal needs. These are:

INCLUSION : This need indicates how much we generally include other people in our
lives and how much attention, contact, and recognition we want from others. It is the
need 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 significance and importance of the self and of others as
unique individuals. Inclusion behaviors represent an attempt to establish areas of mutual
interest and common ground based on this recognition. It 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 relevant to the relationship between an individual and a
group. It describes an individual’s need to feel a sense of belonging and a desire to be
noticed 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 component of inclusion. These are the kinds of questions it raises: Do you like to
include others in what you do, or do you prefer to leave people to their own devices? Do
you give people a lot of attention by asking them to take part in your activities? Do you
want to belong? How much do you want to be “in” or “out”? Do you prefer togetherness
or solitude? Do you like for people to pay attention to you, or do you prefer to remain
more detached? Do you need a little or a lot of recognition? The area of inclusion is
different from emotional closeness or dominance.

CONTROL: This need indicates how much influence and responsibility one wants and
how much one wants others to lead and influence them. Control is about both a person’s
one-to-one relationships and one’s behavior as a part of a group. It refers to the degree to
which a person assumes responsibility, makes decisions, or attempts to dominate others.
It describes an individual’s behavior with respect to power, responsibility, influence, and
decision making. It reflects the degree to which one desires to influence 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 reflects the extent to which a person wants to be
perceived as competent, decisive, and in charge. Control needs are related to the extent to
which people seek dominance in group or in interpersonal settings by seeking to set the
agenda and structure the activities. These are the kinds of questions it raises: How much
do you want to have authority or power, to be in charge, or to take the lead? How much
responsibility do you tend to take? How much influence do you want to have over others,
and how much do you want them to influence you? Do you prefer being a follower or
being a leader, or do you prefer a combination of both roles? How do you react to being
given orders? How much structure do you like in situations? The area of control is
different from how much participation, prominence, or emotional closeness one wants.
AFFECTION : This need indicates how close and warm one is with others and how close
and warm one wants others to be with you. Affection is about the need to establish
comfortable one-to-one relationships. It describes a person’s behavior in forming close,
personal ties 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 warmth,
openness, 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
loved and appreciated. In addition, in some contexts it can reflect the desire to love and to
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. These are the kinds of questions
it raises: Do you behave in ways that show your closeness to others,or do you keep your
distance? Do you want people to show you warmth, or do you prefer more impersonal
relationships? Do you disclose your feelings to other people? Do you like others to
disclose their feelings to you? Are you comfortable in both roles? The area of affection
does not relate to how much prominence, participation, or dominance you prefer.
● EXPRESSED AND WANTED NEEDS: In addition to the three interpersonal needs,
FIRO-B theory also describes how much each of the needs is Expressed (e) or Wanted
(w).

EXPRESSED: This dimension indicates how much one prefers to initiate the behavior. It
is about what one actually does and may be easily observed by others. It describes the
extent to which a person initiates the behaviors associated with the need: the degree to
which she or he behaves in that way toward others.

❖ Expressed Inclusion: How often do you act in ways that encourage your participation in
situations? Do you “move toward” others socially?
❖ Expressed Control: How often do you act in ways that help you direct or influence
situations? Do you like being the person in control when people are making decisions?
❖ Expressed Affection: How often do you act in ways that encourage warmth and closeness
in relationships? Do you initiate openness and closeness with others?

WANTED: This dimension indicates how much one prefers others to initiate the behavior
toward that person. It is about what one really wants from others- whether or not one
shows it openly. It describes the extent to which a person prefers to receive those
behaviors from others: the degree to which one wants others to behave that way toward
oneself.

❖ Wanted Inclusion: How much do you want to be part of others’ activities? Do you
want others to “move toward” you socially?
❖ Wanted Control: How much leadership and influence do you want others to
assume? Do you want others to be in control when people are making decisions?
❖ Wanted Affection: How much warmth and closeness do you want from others?
Do you want others to be open and close to you?

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.

TABLE 2: Behaviors associated with the three interpersonal needs along with their
dimensions, i.e. expressed and wanted

DIMENSION/NEE INCLUSION CONTROL AFFECTION

D

EXPRESSED Talking and joking Assuming positions Reassuring

with others. Taking of authority supporting
a personal interest Advancing an idea colleagues, verbally
in others.Involving within the group. and physically. and
 others in projects Taking a both and Giving
and meetings. competitive stance gifts to show
Recognizing the and making appreciation.
accomplishments of winning a priority. Exhibiting concern
others. Managing the about the personal
Incorporating conversation. lives of others.
everyone’s ideas Influencing others’ Being trustworthy
and suggestions. opinions. and loyal. Sharing
Offering helpful Establishing personal opinions
information and structured tasks, or private feelings
“tips” to new procedures, about issues.
colleagues. policies. Coaching and
developing others.

WANTED Frequenting heavily Asking for help on Being flexible and

trafficked areas. the job. Involving accommodating.
Wearing distinctive others in decision Listening carefully
clothing. making. Requesting to others.
Decorating the precise instructions Displaying an open
workplace with and clarification. body posture.
personal keepsakes. Deferring to the Trying to please
Seeking recognition wishes, needs, and others. Giving
or responsibility. requests of others. others more than
Getting involved in Asking for they want or need.
high-profile permission and
projects and circulating progress
activities.Going for others to
along with the consider
majority’s r.
opinion
● FIRO-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. A person can have any combination of
High, Medium, or Low needs in the six categories defined by the model, viz. Expressed
Inclusion (eI), Wanted Inclusion, (wI), Expressed Control (eC), Wanted Control (wC),
Expressed Affection (eA), and Wanted Affection (wA). There are two important aspects
related to the FIRO-B theory. These are compatibility theory and group development
COMPATIBILITY THEORY: In FIRO-B terms, compatibility generally deals
with the extent to which people’s needs are satisfied in a relationship. Schutz
discusses three types of compatibility: originator, reciprocal, and interchange
compatibility.

❖ Originator compatibility: It measures how much two people will come into
conflict 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 conflict.
❖ Reciprocal compatibility: It measures how well each person can get what
he or she wants and can act in ways to meet his or her needs in a
relationship. For example, if one person has a High need for Expressed
Control and a Low need for Wanted Control and a second person has the
opposite pattern, there is a high degree of reciprocal compatibility because
both persons 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
responsibility.
❖ Interchange compatibility: It measures how much individuals share the
same need strengths. For example, two people with High needs for
 Expressed and Wanted Affection will be compatible because both will see
Affection behaviors as the basis of the relationship, and they will engage
each other around Affection needs.

● 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 first
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 influence
(Control). Once these issues are resolved, Affection becomes an issue, as the group
members must then decide how close or personal they want to be with one another.
Schutz warns that these issues do not necessarily represent distinct phases, as they are
always present to some degree or other; rather, certain issues will be emphasized at
different points in the life of the group. However, if these issues are not 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.

TABLE 3: The FIRO-B model

DIMENSION/NEED INCLUSION CONTROL AFFECTION

The extent to which The extent to which The extent to which

you make an effort to you make an effort to you try to get close to
include others in your control and influence people and to engage
activities, to join and others situations, them on a personal
belong to groups, and organize or to and level; your degree of
to be with people. direct others, and to comfort in being open
assume responsibility. with and supportive
of others.

The extent to which The extent to which The extent to which

you want others to you are comfortable you want others to
include you in their working in well interest you; the
activities and to invite defined situations extent to which you
you to join or belong with clear want others to share
to groups; the extent expectations and things with you and
 to which you want to instructions. to encourage you.
be noticed.

● APPLICATIONS OF FIRO-B : The FIRO-B instrument has been applied in various

settings. These include:

Career development: The FIRO-B instrument can be used to help people choose
or create careers that will offer them increased opportunities to meet their
interpersonal needs. There is ample evidence that people tend to gravitate toward
occupations in which they can perform tasks that are congruent with their needs.
Within occupations, a person’s needs can also determine which organization or
which position within an organization might be a good fit for the individual.
Realization of their need for Inclusion may point people toward or away from
occupations or roles that require high degrees of interpersonal interaction, e.g.
sales positions.
Team building and culture: One of the primary issues in team building is member
compatibility/incompatibility and its effect on the process and productivity of the
team. The FIRO-B instrument offers a means to explicitly identify compatibility.
The basic idea is that teams are compatible whenever there are team members
with high Expressed needs in a given FIRO-B need area as well as members with
high Wanted needs in the same area. The instrument can be used at a more macro
level to examine the culture of the team, to compare cultures across teams or
organizational units, or to describe the culture of the organization as a whole. The
instrument can be used to identify roles that members are likely to play on their
team and how satisfied a person is being a member of any given team.
Leadership development and coaching: Use of the FIRO-B instrument has grown
simultaneously with the growth in the practice of leadership coaching and
executive development. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that at least one scale
of the instrument addresses a topic of great interest to leaders: control. The
instrument not only can provide insights into the leader’s needs in each of the
 three need areas and in the Expressed and Wanted domains but also can shed light
on how a leader with these needs is perceived by others. One of the studies
presented offers a clear challenge to coaches and trainers. DiMarco, Kuehl, &
Wims (1975) found that a two-day training workshop for supervisors was not
effective in moving those with initially high eC needs toward increased
consideration of others. The challenge to coaches and trainers is to design training
events and skill-building exercises that can accomplish this goal.
Counseling: The FIRO-B instrument can be used in individual, couple, or group
counseling by trained professionals. Because it can be used to focus discussion on
interpersonal needs, clients with relationship issues may find it particularly useful.
Interpretation can focus on the clients’ needs and on identifying behaviors that are
likely to increase the chance of having those needs met. Clients also may benefit
from understanding that significant others may have different needs and, as a
consequence, develop increased sensitivity as to the effect of their behavior on
others.
Relationship building: The FIRO-B instrument is used in this domain to ensure
that employees get the most out of working relationships by helping them
understand how to meet the interpersonal needs of customers and stakeholders.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A study conducted by Amudhadevi, N.V. (2012) aimed to examine emotional intelligence in

relation to interpersonal relationships and role stress among school teachers. The sample in this
study included 50 female school teachers teaching in 10th, 11th and 12th classes in government
aided schools. The instruments used in the study were the Emotional Competence Inventory
(ECI) by Daniel Goleman (1999), Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior
(FIRO-B) by Schutz (1978), and Organizational Role Stress Scale (ORS) by Udai Pareek (1983).
Mean, Standard Deviations and Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation were calculated to
identify the relationships between emotional intelligence, interpersonal relationships, and role
stress along with their various subscales. The findings of the study revealed that the social
awareness component of emotional intelligence is related to the Expressed Affection component
of interpersonal relationships and to the role expectation conflict which is a component of role
stress.

In a study conducted by Bruininks, V.L. (1978), the aim was to examine the patterns and
personality correlates of teachers’ interaction with students. The objectives of the study were to
explore (a) the pattern of teachers’ positive responses to students’ work products, ideas, and
personal/social behaviors, and (b) whether certain patterns of positive responses are related to
teachers’ personality. The sample consisted of 109 elementary and secondary classroom teachers.
A trained examiner using the Teacher Affective Feedback Guide (Bruininks, 1975) recorded each
teacher’s behaviors during randomly scheduled 20 minute observation periods. The teachers then
completed the FIRO-B instrument. The results were computed by calculating Mean, Standard
Deviation, and Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation. Correlations between teachers’ scores on
the FIRO-B and the proportion of their positive responses to work products, ideas, and
personal/social behaviors showed that Expressed Control was positively related to the proportion
of positive responses to work products.

In a study conducted by Mitra, D. & Chatterjee, I. (2016), the aim was to investigate the
significant difference between various interpersonal relationship needs of the employees of
private and public sector organizations. 437 employees were selected from 55 public and private
organizations. Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation- Behavior (FIRO-B) scale
developed by William Schutz (1978) was administered to collect the data from the sample. For
data analysis, descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA were used. The findings revealed that
significant differences existed between private and public sector employees in total Wanted
needs, total behavior needs, as well as overall needs score. It was seen that private sector
employees held stronger interpersonal needs than public sector employees. Employees from both
the sectors fell in almost similar categories regarding individual need score as well as total and
behavioral need scores.

A study was conducted by Al-Maaitah, R. et al. (2015) to identify the interpersonal behaviors of
Jordanian nursing students in relation to type of nursing program, year and level, and gender. The
participants (n= 822) were drawn randomly from all non-military nursing programs in Jordan.
The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B) test was used to assess
the interpersonal behavior of the participants. Mean and Standard Deviations were computed for
data analysis. The findings indicated that (a) there was no significant difference in the
interpersonal behaviors of baccalaureate and diploma program nursing students, (b) male nursing
students had more desire to control interpersonal relations than did female nursing students, and
(c) third- and fourth- year nursing students had a greater need to associate with and become close
to others than did first- and second-year nursing students.

In a study conducted by Sellick, K.J. (1991), the aim was to investigate the interpersonal
behaviors of general nurses and evaluate the effectiveness of a nine-week program in developing
helping skills. The sample consisted of 99 nurses and the majority of them were female with an
age range from 22 to 50 years. Interpersonal behaviors were assessed using the Fundamental
Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B) test. All students who participated in the
study completed a nine week interpersonal communication skills training program. The FIRO-B
test was administered to students by the group leaders during the first week of the program and
again during the last week of the program. Mean and Standard Deviations were calculated for
data analysis. The results of the study showed that nurses had less desire to belong and a stronger
need to influence or control interpersonal relationships.

METHOD

● PRELIMINARIES
Age: 20
Sex: Female
Education: Undergraduate
Occupation: Student

● DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST

The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior, or FIRO-B Test for
In short, the instrument originated from the need to understand and predict how high
performance military teams would work together during World War II. It was derived
 in the late 1950s by William Schutz. The basis for the FIRO-B questionnaire is the
simple emotional concept that people need people and people’s interpersonal needs
motivate their behaviors. As an employment aide, FIRO-B is used mainly for purposes
of employee and management development, team building, and training programs. The
FIRO-B questionnaire is focused on three basic interpersonal needs: Inclusion, Control,
and Affection, as seen through the lens of Expressed behavior and Wanted behavior.
The FIRO-B model establishes six distinct elements that identify the dynamics of
communication and interpersonal relations, viz. Expressed Inclusion (eI), Wanted
Inclusion (wI), Expressed Control (eC), Wanted Control (wC), Expressed Affection
(eA), and Wanted Affection (wA). Inclusion involves openness to new relationships
and to come into contact with people. The need for Control determines an individual’s
comfort level with decision-making, persuasion, and influence. The need for Affection
determines a person’s emotional connection and the level of personal sharing and
closeness with others.

● DEVELOPMENT : The FIRO-B scale was constructed for each of the six patterns that
represent combinations of the three need areas (Inclusion, Control, Affection) with the
two behavioral dimensions (Expressed and Wanted). The six scales of the FIRO-B
instrument were constructed using a measurement technique known as Guttman Scaling
(Guttman, 1974). When items are written to be consistent with Guttman scaling
procedures, the items reflect increasing intensity or difficulty of acceptance. The
technique was originally developed for use in the measurement of attitudes. In a perfect
Guttman scale, a person who agrees with any “higher-level” or more intense statement
will also agree with all of the “lower-level” or milder statements that are ordered below
it. Conversely, once a respondent stops agreeing, he or she will no longer agree with
any item higher in the hierarchy. The technique attempts to order items and construct
\scoring in such a way as to find the point or threshold at which a person will reject an
item. When scales are created in this manner, traditional psychometric techniques for
determining the reliability of the scale are usually supplemented by additional methods
in order to ensure reproducibility.
● RELIABILITY : Because the FIRO-B instrument was constructed using Guttman
scaling procedures, a more appropriate index of internal consistency is reproducibility.
It refers to the fact that for Guttman scales, in which the items occur in a certain order,the
item responses should be predictable or reproducible from the knowledge of the
scale scores. The reproducibility of the FIRO-B scales based on the samples used by
Schutz to develop the FIRO-B instrument, which he describes as “mostly college
students, plus a small population of Air Force personnel” is very high and consistent,
falling in the range of .93-.94 (Schutz, 1978). The internal-consistency reliability of the
FIRO-B scales based on coefficient alpha and the data from the national sample is also
good, falling in the range of .85-.96. The test-retest reliability coefficients in three
samples of different ages: junior high school students (Hutcherson, 1965), college
students (Schutz, 1978), and adults (Gluck, 1983) demonstrate that the FIRO-B scores
are relatively stable over short periods of time, mostly falling in the range of .71-.85.
Sources: Samples for adult and junior high school students reported in Gluck (1983).
Sample for college students from Schutz (1978).

● VALIDITY : A number of studies have shown the FIRO-B instrument to be related to

measures of leadership (e.g. Fiedler’s Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale, -.43-.46),
personal values such as community service (.05 to .27) and relationships/friendships (-
.03 to .27) (Hammer & Schnell, 2000). Additionally, relationships are also found with
instruments such as the MBTI Form M instrument (-.56 to .29) and the CPI instrument
(-.48 to .51) (Hammer & Schnell, 2000).

● NORMS: A national sample of about 3,000 adults (those over 18 years of age) was
collected in 1997 as part of the revision of the MBTI instrument (Myers, McCaulley,
Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). The sampling was conducted using a stratified sampling
procedure based on random-digit dialing of telephone numbers in the United States.
The population was based on the following demographic characteristics:
By gender : The means were compared using t-tests. On average, women have
significantly higher means on eI, wC, eA, wA, Total Wanted, Total Inclusion, Total
Affection, and Overall Need. Men score significantly higher on eC and Total Control,
the latter due primarily to the large difference on eC.
By ethnic groups : The mean scores of Blacks are lower than mean scores for the total
sample (who are primarily Whites) in all categories except Expressed Control, for
which means the same as those of the total sample. The scores of Hispanics
present the opposite picture, with means on all scales except wC greater than those of
the total sample.
By education : Those with higher levels of education generally have higher
interpersonal needs than those at lower educational levels, especially for eI, wI, and eC.
The exception is wC, where those with higher levels of education have the lowest need
for wC of any group. Those with a technical school education have the highest need for
wC and the lowest for eA and wA.
By age : Needs for eC, wI, eI, and eA seem to decrease with age, whereas wA needs
seem to remain fairly constant. There seems to be a slight increase in needs for wC. The
 the largest drop is in the need for wI.
By culture : Cross-cultural norms for the FIRO-B instrument are available from 17
countries, but only for samples of managers. The overall pattern of needs is very similar
among the managers, with the exceptions of the High need for wC in the managers from
the United Kingdom and the High need for eA in the managers from Mexico. The
Canadian managers generally evidence lower interpersonal needs, while the Mexican
managers exhibit the highest levels on four of the six needs. Compared to the U.S.
managers, the Mexican managers are significantly higher on all the Expressed needs
and lower on wC.
By organizational level : there are few differences in interpersonal needs among people
at different organizational levels. The obvious exception is Expressed Control, on
which a ranking of the scores corresponds perfectly with organizational level. Hourly
employees have the highest need for Wanted Control and higher needs for Affection,
both Expressed and Wanted, than any of the other groups. The highest score for the
three “lowest”-level groups is for Wanted Affection, and for the three “highest”-level
groups, Expressed Control, and then Wanted Affection.

PROCEDURE:

● MATERIALS REQUIRED
FIRO-B manual, scoring sheet, pencil, and eraser

● RAPPORT FORMATION
The participant was contacted over the phone and the rapport was built. Initially light
conversation was done to make the participant feel comfortable and safe. After this, the
participant was asked if she could spare 20 minutes or so, and she was encouraged to
answer honestly. The participant was told that a test is being conducted as a part of the
college curriculum and asked if she is willing to participate in it. She was assured that
confidentiality will be maintained, and the data will be used only for academic
purposes. Voluntary participation was ensured. The participant was told that she could
withdraw from participation at any point of time during the test without any
 consequences. The participant was asked when s/he will be free to complete the same.
At that decided time slot, she was called again to ensure that she was available so that
the test could be sent.

● INSTRUCTIONS
“For each statement below, decide which of the following answers best applies to you.
Mark an X in the appropriate circle. There are no right or wrong answers. There is no
passing or failing associated with the results. The results are non-judgmental 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. Do not spend too much
time thinking about any particular statement. Please do not change an answer once you
have circled your initial response and be as honest as you can. If there is any sort of
query, you can ask. Thank you for participating!”

● ADMINISTRATION
For the administration, a google form was created and sent to the participant on the time
when we were sure that she was available. All the doubts of the participant were
clarified during the administration. She was asked to complete the form and was
requested to try to submit the form within 15-20 minutes after the link for the form was
shared. It ensured that she had a secure internet connection. When the participant’s
responses were received, she was debriefed over a phone call and thanked for her
participation in the survey.

SCORING

The FIRO-B instrument contains 54 items. The client is asked to respond to each item using
one 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 are never, rarely, occasionally,
sometimes, often, and 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
scales are nobody, one or two people, a few people, some people, many people, and most people.
Although the respondent is asked to circle a number from 1 to 6 that best describes his or her
behavior, the scale scores are derived using a 0,1 key. Scoring the instrument consists of the
following steps:
1. It is determined whether the client’s response for an item reached the necessary cutoff
established for that item.
2. If the response reached the cutoff, one point is added to the scale to which that item is
keyed. If the response fails to reach the cutoff, nothing is added to the scale.
3. The item responses (number of items for which the threshold was reached) for each
scales are summed, yielding six scores: eI, wI, 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).
5. Total Expressed and Total Wanted scores are derived by summing across the need
scores (across the rows on the grid).
6. The Overall Need score is derived by summing all six cell scores or, equivalently, adding
the Expressed and Wanted scores or adding the three Total Need scores.

RESULTS

The individual scores and the total scores of the participant have been represented in the tables
and graphs.
TABLE 5: Overall Needs score, i.e. total need for Inclusion, Control, and Affection with
respect to Expressed and Wanted behaviors.

EXPRESSED EXPRESSED EXPRESSED Total Expressed

INCLUSION (eI) CONTROL (eC) AFFECTION (eA)
0 1 1 2

WANTED WANTED WANTED Total Wanted

INCLUSION (wI) CONTROL (wC) AFFECTION (wA)
0 4 3 7

Total Inclusion Total Control Total Affection Overall=eI+ wI+ eC+

0 5 4 wC+ eA+ wA= 6
TABLE 6: Scores for Total Expressed and Total Wanted needs

EXPRESSED WANTED TOTAL

INCLUSION 0 0 0

CONTROL 1 4 5

AFFECTION 1 3 4

TOTAL Expressed Wanted Inclusion +

Inclusion + Wanted Control+
Expressed Control+ Wanted Affection
Expressed Affection