FIRO-B Survey Explanation

Over time we develop tendencies to behave toward others in certain ways. The FIRO-B survey assesses those
tendencies along three dimensions: (1) inclusion, (2) control, and (3) affection. The survey assesses a persons
need for these dimensions in two ways: (1) how much one wants to express that dimension, and (2) how much one
wants to receive that dimension from others.
The inclusion dimension on the survey assesses the degree to which a person wants to be a part of a group
versus the degree to which a person wants to be left alone. Expressed inclusion taps into how much a person
wants to either join a group (e.g., Can I be on your team?) or how much a person wants to include others (e.g.,
Come and hang out with us). Wanted inclusion taps into how much a person wants others to ask her to be
included (e.g., I hope I get invited to the party).
The control dimension on the survey assesses the degree to which a person wants to exert power and influence
in relationships versus the degree to which a person wants independence. Expressed control taps into how much
a person wants to take charge and exert control and provide direction and structure to other people. Wanted
control taps into how much a person wants others to provide that direction and structure for him.
The affection dimension on the survey assesses the degree to which a person wants to form close relationships
versus the degree to which a person feels overcommitted or smothered. Affection does not only deal with romantic
affection, but it also encompasses warmth and closeness found in non-romantic relationships. Expressed
affection taps into how much a person wants to initiate a closeness or bond with others. Wanted affection taps
into how much a person wants others to show affection toward him.
INCLUSION

CONTROL

AFFECTION

EXPRESSED

I join other people, and I

include other people

I take charge, and I

influence people

I get close and personal

with people

WANTED

I want other people to

include me

I want others to lead me or

give me directions

I want people to get close

and personal with me

When you score your survey, you will see that you can add the total for each row and you can add the total for each
column. If your total for the expressed row is much higher than the total for the wanted row, then you are
exhibiting a controller pattern because you want to express but are not willing to accept in return. If your total for
the wanted row is much higher than the total for the expressed row, then you are exhibiting a passive pattern
because you want to receive but are unwilling to initiate interaction. The total for the columns lets you see how
much a particular dimension is important to you in relation to the other dimensions.
You can also examine your overall total by either adding the row totals or the column totals (the totals are the same
either way). This provides you with your social interaction index which is an indication of your overall
interpersonal need level (i.e., how much you want to interact with others). The highest score possible is 54.
People with high scores tend to be friendly and involved with others. People with low scores are typically more shy
and reserved people. As comparison data, the average for the cells and row and column totals are provided below.
The top number in each cell shows the range within which 50 percent of adults fall. The bottom number in the cell
is the average score for adults.
INCLUSION

CONTROL

AFFECTION

EXPRESSED

47
5.4

25
3.9

36
4.1

Total Expressed
9 18
13.4

WANTED

58
6.5

36
4.6

36
4.6

Total Wanted
11 20
15.9

9 15
11.9

5 11
8.5

6 12
8.9

Social Interaction Index

20 38
29.3

One of the most useful aspects of the FIRO-B survey is that it allows you to compare your interpersonal behavior
tendencies with those of others with whom you interact. This allows you to assess how compatible you might be
with another person. This compatibility is not focused on the kind in a romantic relationship, although the survey
would provide that type of information. Comparing scores allows you to see if there would be potential
interpersonal problems in interactions with specific people, regardless of where those interactions occurred (e.g.,
workplace, volunteer organizations, sports team, etc.).
There are two types of incompatibilities that we will examine. The table below will be used to illustrate the formulas
needed to calculate the incompatibilities.
Team Member 1 Scores
Inclusion

Control

Affection

Row totals

Expressed

19

Wanted

15

Column Totals

17

13

34

Team Member 2 Scores

Inclusion

Control

Affection

Row totals

Expressed

17

Wanted

12

Column Totals

10

14

29

The first is the reciprocal incompatibility. This incompatibility examines the match between one persons
expressed behavior and the other persons wanted behavior. A score of 7 or higher indicates a strong possibility of
incompatibility. The formula is the following (TM = team member):

TM1 e TM2 w + TM2 e TM1 w =

While this formula may look confusing, it makes sense and become easy to remember if you look at the rationale
behind it. You are simply looking at the differences between one persons expressed and the other persons
wanted scores and adding them together. You make the difference an absolute value because it does not matter
who has the higher number. You are simply trying to see if Team Member 1s expressed score for a particular
dimension (i.e., inclusion) is close to the score of Team Member 2s wanted score. Does the one person want to
give as much as the other wants to accept? The closer the numbers, the less likely you are to have an
incompatibility. Then you look at the difference going the other way (i.e., the difference between Team Member 1s
wanted score Team Member 2s expressed score). The calculations are done for each dimension of the FIRO-B,
so you will have 3 reciprocal incompatibility scores.

Inclusion: 9 2 + 3 8 = 7 + 5 = 12
Control: 9 2 + 8 4 = 7 + 4 = 11
Affection: 1 8 + 6 3 = 7 + 3 = 10
This shows that there are potential incompatibilities for each of the three dimensions. Another way to remember
the formula is to simply think of outside and inside. For any one dimension, you simply look at the outside cells
of the two tables and take the absolute difference, and then you add that to the absolute difference from the inside
cells. The formula then becomes visual and you do not need to memorize the equation.
Expressed

outside

outside

outside

Wanted

inside

inside

inside

Expressed

inside

outside

outside

outside

inside

inside

Wanted

The second incompatibility is the interchange incompatibility. This incompatibility examines the degree to which
two people emphasize the same interpersonal needs (i.e., dimension). If, for instance, one person emphasizes
control while the other person emphasized affection more, the two people may view problem through different
lenses. The one emphasizing control may say something like, The problem employee needs to be more willing
to accept directions. The one emphasizing affection may say something like, The problem employee needs to be
less distant.
The formula for the interchange incompatibility is the following. A score of 7 or higher indicates a strong possibility
of incompatibility.

( TM1 e + TM1 w ) ( TM2 e + TM2 w )=

The formula is simply looking at the column totals for each person and calculating the difference in terms of
absolute value. So, all you need to do is look at the difference between the two people for a specific column total
(e.g., affection). As with the reciprocal in incompatibilities, there are three calculations for the interchange
incompatibilities.

Inclusion: ( 17 ) ( 5 )= 12
Control: (13) 10)= 3
Affection: (4) 14)= 10
The results above show that having a reciprocal incompatibility does not mean that an interchange incompatibility
will also occur. For control, there was a reciprocal incompatibility while there was not an interchange
incompatibility.
For Exam 1, you will need to know how to calculate these two incompatibilities. You will be given tables similar to
the ones above for Team Member 1 and Team Member 2 and asked to make the calculations.