FIRO-B & MBTI in conjunction

[Totenkindly]

The Firo-B (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation -- Behavior) test is another measurement tool often used to add more specification to the standard MBTI.

Firo-B has been around since the late 1950's and assumes that individuals are motivated by three interpersonal needs: Inclusion (I), Control (C), and Affection (A). Each of these needs can also be separated into Expressed needs (i.e., how much the individual is likely to express the trait) versus Wanted (i.e., how likely the individual is to want others to express the trait towards them).

The six traits can be described as follows:

• Expressed Inclusion (eI); I make an effort to include others in my activities, to belong, to join social groups, and to be with others as much as possible.
• Wanted Inclusion (wI): I want others to include me in their activities, to invite me to belong, and to notice me.
• Expressed Control (eC): I make an effort to exert control and influence and to organize and direct others.
• Wanted Control (wC): I want others to provide well-defined work situations and clear expectations and instructions.
• Expressed Affection (eA): I make an effort to get close to people, to express personal feelings, and to be supportive of others.
• Wanted Affection (wA): I want others to act warmly toward me, to share their feelings, and to encourage my efforts.

Taken from Schnell, Eugene R., and Hammer, Allen L., "Integrating the FIRO-B with the MBTI" in "Developing Leaders" eds Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda Kirby, Davies Black Publishing: Palo Alto, CA, 1997, p.440.

An interesting 1994 study explored linkage between Firo-B and MBTI. One sample included 14000 managers participating in a leadership dev program over 11 years, while the other involved a sample of 386 managers who participated at another program. Cross-section demographics tended to show white males, young/mid-40's, college, educated, drawn from middle/upper ranks of their organizations. Most common types were ISTJ, ESTJ, and ENTJ.

• Extroversion was related to higher scores on all Firo-B dimensions except Wanted Control.
• Feeling was positively related to high scores on both dimensions of Affection.
• IxTx had lowest levels of both Affection dimensions.
• Judging was NOT shown to be significantly related to Expressed Control.
• Expressed Control was determined to be related to ExTx.
• Thinking had the highest need for Expressed Control.
• Sensing was not related to Wanted Control.
• Feeling was significantly associated with Wanted Control.
• Highest levels of Wanted Control associated with ISFx types; lowest levels, with all NT and ST combinations.
• xNxP was significantly associated with Wanted Inclusion.
• Wanted Affection was the first or second highest interpersonal need for all 16 types.

Finally a summary of the highest one or two FIRO-B cell scores for each MBTI type:

• xNTx: (1) Expressed Control, (2) Wanted Affection
• IxFx: (1) Wanted Affection
• ExFx: (1) Wanted Affection, (2) Expressed Inclusion
• ISTx, ESTP: (1) Expressed Control, (2) Wanted Affection
• ESTJ: (1) Wanted Affection, (2) Expressed Control

Sorry if the middle part (conclusions) feels a little jumbled, I'm trying to condense an entire paper into one small post.

 

[rivercrow]

Actually, the MBTI Manual has a number of studies with correlations between several Types and FIRO-B.

I'll see what I can do about transcribing some of the information, for comparison.

 

[meshou]

Is this a test which can be taken online sans fee?

 

[Totenkindly]

Is this a test which can be taken online sans fee?

I don't know. I'm keeping my eyes out for one, but once we get into the MBTI Step II and the Firo-B (and some others), they seem to not be popularized enough to be free online yet.

I've seen sites that sell the forms and scoring books, for professional test-givers. (So at least they're available, but unfortunately for a price.)

 

[rivercrow]

Is this a test which can be taken online sans fee?

I've never seen one.

My opinion, increasingly, is that all free online MBTI-type tests should be eradicated.

 

[meshou]

Why? Even in a controlled setting, they're not all that consistant.

 

[ptgatsby]

I don't know. I'm keeping my eyes out for one, but once we get into the MBTI Step II and the Firo-B (and some others), they seem to not be popularized enough to be free online yet.

I've seen sites that sell the forms and scoring books, for professional test-givers. (So at least they're available, but unfortunately for a price.)

A lot of these are considered professional tests which require a tester to some degree. There is also a lot of movement to keep specifics out of the hands of the public since widespread knowledge of the tests tends to give bias to the studies. I find these to be rationalisations, seeing as FIRO and MBTI are owned by the same group (CPP). A lot of the reasons for these... uhh... less scientific models has to do with commercialisation. It plays a significant part in the similar controls on each of them.

 

[rivercrow]

Why? Even in a controlled setting, they're not all that consistant.

No, that's not true. The new Form M has a reliability in the 90%. Form G was in the mid-upper 80%. I have copies of Form M and from what I can tell, most of the online free tests are based off the older test. (edit: Yes, I did say F, I meant G.)

I see several problems with the free online tests.

The terminology is misleadingly simplistic. When Jung speaks of Sensing, iNtuiting, Thinking, and Feeling, he is using special terminology. Because the words seem familiar, people think they understand them intuitively (no pun intended). Look around, and you'll see a constant furor over what these "simple" words mean. People engaged on these sites are by far much better informed than most of the population--I've been to class, I can speak from experience! Imagine what a truly lay individual comes away with from an online Type "test."

People don't understand the "scores." Scores simply talk about the ability of the instrument to sort your preferences. High scores don't say a thing about competency. If I have a high score on Thinking, does that mean I'm any good at it? No, not at all. Nor does that mean that I am out of touch from my feelings. Again, look around you. You'll see this fallacy repeated over & over.

Type is not Trait. This concept covers a number of ills.

MBTI is a psychological tool, just as are FIRO-B, Millon, CPI, etc. Purchase, administration, and interpretation of the instrument is restricted to people who have taken classes in psychometrics or who have attended a qualifying class. Part of this is because the language is specialized. Part of it is understanding the ethical implications of the tools and results.

Would you believe an IQ test you took for free from OKCupid? Should you use those scores to choose a career? Probably not. Who created the test? Where's the research behind free tests? I know the research behind MBTI--yeah, it has problems; no, it's not perfect. But MBTI practitioners will admit that there are weaknesses and strengths. It's in our best interest to do so.

The MBTI, being a sorting tool, faces some interesting challenges. It is not based on a norm. The midline is a dividing line between two very different things. Each side of the distribution plots are very different--not the standard bell-curve you'd expect from a norm.

For example. I'm looking at a distribution plot of "Reported books read per year as a function of Sensing and iNtuition preference scores." The left side of the midline, the Sensing side, hovers around 5. The right side of the midline, the iNtuiting side, arcs from 30 to 35 to 40. If the tool lacked validity, you would not see this split.

 

[rivercrow]

A lot of these are considered professional tests which require a tester to some degree. There is also a lot of movement to keep specifics out of the hands of the public since widespread knowledge of the tests tends to give bias to the studies. I find these to be rationalisations, seeing as FIRO and MBTI are owned by the same group (CPP). A lot of the reasons for these... uhh... less scientific models has to do with commercialisation. It plays a significant part in the similar controls on each of them.

I agree with the bias from familiarity. I've seen that in myself.

But I don't think that simple greed is behind keeping the tools under some form of control.

 

[Martoon]

No, that's not true. The new Form M has a reliability in the 90%. Form G was in the mid-upper 80%.

How do they determine the reliability? I'm not familiar with how these metrics work.

People engaged on these sites are by far much better informed than most of the population

Mommy, she's scaring me!

 

[ptgatsby]

I agree with the bias from familiarity. I've seen that in myself.

But I don't think that simple greed is behind keeping the tools under some form of control.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that is what the cause is; I do, however, remain doubtful that the commercialisation of these instruments have not played a role in how they are controlled and how they are investigated.

 

[Xander]

Well this is a little hypocritical isn't it? Surely as two seperate theories they don't integrate at all and such

 

[rivercrow]

Well this is a little hypocritical isn't it? Surely as two seperate theories they don't integrate at all and such

Integration and corroboration for validity purposes aren't the same. :hi:

 

[rivercrow]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that is what the cause is; I do, however, remain doubtful that the commercialisation of these instruments have not played a role in how they are controlled and how they are investigated.

I think the commercialization of these instruments is what causes them to be more widely available, not the other way round.

The investigation work is still done by research and/or practicing psychologists. Regardless how we slice the pie, the things still remain psychometric devices.

On a related note....

You can't take free online versions of the SAT/ACT/GRE/etc and use those scores for getting into school. You *can* use those scores as a study guide *if* the tests are considered valid. How do you know if the tests are valid? Someone compares the methodology or wording used in the free tests against the actual tests.

Hm. The other technical certification exams I've taken are all copyrighted. Reproducing the test is a theft of intellectual property rights. So are these online free exams violating copyright as well?

 

[meshou]

They violate copyright if they claim to be MBTI.

However, the use of the E/I, N/S, T/F, and P/J variants are not copyrightable, I do not belive, especially since Keirsey made use of them as well (and apparently they didn't defend use of that), and second, since they are ideas first presented in off-copyright works by Jung which the MBTI built upon. Again, socionics, a different system based on Jung, is perfectly legit legally.

So, given that Jung is off copyright, and given they didn't defend their lettering system, someone can claim they made the test from scratch using off-copyright work and are using the reasily available terminology and lettering system to classify someone and may be mostly legally off the hook.

 

[rivercrow]

They violate copyright if they claim to be MBTI.

However, the use of the E/I, N/S, T/F, and P/J variants are not copyrightable, I do not belive, especially since Keirsey made use of them as well (and apparently they didn't defend use of that), and second, since they are ideas first presented in off-copyright works by Jung which the MBTI built upon. Again, socionics, a different system based on Jung, is perfectly legit legally.

So, given that Jung is off copyright, and given they didn't defend their lettering system, someone can claim they made the test from scratch using off-copyright work and are using the reasily available terminology and lettering system to classify someone and may be mostly legally off the hook.

I don't believe Jung's works are off copyright. Copyright, IIRC, extends 70+ years past the creator's death, and Jung died in 1961.

We are here talking MBTI and we're discussing non-MBTI tests as equivalent to the official indicator. We are outside the scope of the discussion.

Free online versions of the Keirsey instrument have been removed. The person who ran the free Keirsey site was ordered to remove his version by Keirsey's organization.

I don't know anything about the validity and research behind Socionics, so I will not comment on that tool.

 

[Xander]

Integration and corroboration for validity purposes aren't the same. :hi:

"used to add more" sounds like integration and not corroboration. The FIRO-B adds details of the persons behaviour (interpersonal I think but it could be more wide ranging). How this would essentially be different from say integrating the enneagram escapes me unless we're talking prejudice towards one system or another.
________________________________________
Having done the FIRO-B it does add detail to my description but it's not really a good map onto the MBTI without including a lot more facets. IT maps better onto a combination of the MBTI and the enneagram.

If you have a look at my sig you'll see I have all three sets of results listed. Now trying to explain an INTP with high inclusion is difficult. Trying to explain an INTP 9 with high inclusion makes a little more cohesive sense.

 

[rivercrow]

"used to add more" sounds like integration and not corroboration. The FIRO-B adds details of the persons behaviour (interpersonal I think but it could be more wide ranging). How this would essentially be different from say integrating the enneagram escapes me unless we're talking prejudice towards one system or another.
________________________________________
Having done the FIRO-B it does add detail to my description but it's not really a good map onto the MBTI without including a lot more facets. IT maps better onto a combination of the MBTI and the enneagram.

If you have a look at my sig you'll see I have all three sets of results listed. Now trying to explain an INTP with high inclusion is difficult. Trying to explain an INTP 9 with high inclusion makes a little more cohesive sense.

I don't think we're talking integration at all. That was part of the problem with the Enneagram/MBTI discussion.

These are different ways of looking at one thing--the individual. MBTI looks at processing/gathering information. Enneagram looks at motivation and barriers. FIRO-B (and some of the others) look at interpersonal relations and outward behaviors.

There are behaviors that we would logically assume to be related to type. For example, someone preferring an Extraverted function as dominant would logically behave in a way that shows an active engagement with the outside world. Extravert dominant preference usually leads to a breadth of interests, rather than a depth of interest--especially with the person is younger. (I say that because I believe an Introvert dominant's depth of interest may widen over time and an Extravert dominant's breadth of interest may deepen over time--if only because of accumulation over time!)

So what I balk at when you, Xander, want to integrate tools is that you seem to want to make a wrenchscrewdriverhammersaw. It's too unwieldy, and in many cases all you need is a hammer or a screwdriver, not all four. Or you need one only--just a hammer--but you can't efficiently use a saw as a hammer.

Whereas corroboration says: How does a wrench and a screwdriver work similarly and what can we gather from that inference?

Now, if you said "integration" but meant "corroboration," then we have a different issue to address.

Using all the tools appropriately can provide a fuller image of the individual. Instead of looking from one direction only, you're looking from different directions. You can't see the back of a building without walking around to the back of it. Same concept.

 

[Xander]

in·te·grate /ˈɪntɪˌgreɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-ti-greyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -grat·ed, -grat·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to bring together or incorporate (parts) into a whole.
2. to make up, combine, or complete to produce a whole or a larger unit, as parts do.
3. to unite or combine.
4. to give or cause to give equal opportunity and consideration to (a racial, religious, or ethnic group or a member of such a group): to integrate minority groups in the school system.
5. to combine (educational facilities, classes, and the like, previously segregated by race) into one unified system; desegregate.
6. to give or cause to give members of all races, religions, and ethnic groups an equal opportunity to belong to, be employed by, be customers of, or vote in (an organization, place of business, city, state, etc.): to integrate a restaurant; to integrate a country club.
7. Mathematics. to find the integral of.
8. to indicate the total amount or the mean value of.
–verb (used without object) 9. to become integrated.
10. to meld with and become part of the dominant culture.
11. Mathematics.
a. to perform the operation of integration.
b. to find the solution to a differential equation.

So if you combine two systems what does this tell you about the person?

cor·rob·o·rate /v. kəˈrɒbəˌreɪt; adj. kəˈrɒbərɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. kuh-rob-uh-reyt; adj. kuh-rob-er-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -rat·ed, -rat·ing, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. to make more certain; confirm: He corroborated my account of the accident.
–adjective 2. Archaic. confirmed.

I continue to fail to see how looking at someone's FIRO-B results or their enneagram can confirm or deny their MBTI results.


(If you don't watch it I'm gonna keep a score sheet (admittedly I lose it or lose interest in keeping score but... yeah I'll... ooo... :steam: )

 

[Xander]

As for corrolation between MBTI and FIRO-B I would expect a certain amount of it to show as it would make sense that preferances for certain cognative functions would also display a similar preference for the seemingly corresponding behaviour. However I'd lay good money that there's a lot of those who fall outside such links. Myself being one.

Perhaps it displays what could be termed as the actualised self where as the MBTI is more the raw self? (strictly ignoring the imbalance between the two systesm and other such intricacies)