I happened to look up Schutz's, original 1958 introduction to the theory,
FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior yesterday. On Amazon, it's $179, and the only library that had it was the main NYPL reading room (it can't be borrowed), in the building with the lions out front. I had looked up several other type/temperament books there, but forgot why I never looked up this one (may have been unavailable at the time?)
I found the primary thing I was was looking for; the source of his names from the behavior score groups in each area. I had been told what I posted in #38; that he only gave partial names for the scores:
"Inclusion types" ("oversocial"—high E/W, "social"—medium E/W, "undersocial"—low E/W), "Control types" ("autocrat"—high E/low W, "abdicrat"—low E/high W, "democrat"—med. E/W) and "Affection types" ("overpersonal"—high E/W, "personal"—medium E/W, "underpersonal"—low E/W).
I think someone told me this over the phone years ago, supposedly reading it from some official source or something; as it was the only way to gain the information at the time, and as much as I periodically searched online, there was no further info on it. So I wanted to see the original book myself, where he coined the terms, and the justification for the partial naming.
Come to find out, he
did name all the non-moderate score names after all, and the "over-"/"under-" and "auto-"/"abdi-" prefixes represented
expressed scores
only. Wanted scores have their own roots: "-compliant"/"counter-" for Inclusion and Affection, and "submissive"/"rebellious" for Control. For some reason, these latter terms aren't mentioned as much as the former ones, so they did look like whole "type" names.
We thus end up with the six dimensions as follows:
eI: "I initiate interaction with others" (High: "oversocial"; low "undersocial")
wI: "I want to be Included" (High: "social-compliant"; low: "countersocial")
eC: "I try to control others" (High: "autocrat"; low: "abdicrat")
wC: "I want to be controlled" (High: "submissive"; low: "rebellious")
eA: "I try to be close and personal" (High: "overpersonal"; low: "underpersonal")
wA: "I want others to be close and personal with me" (High: "personal-compliant"; low: "counterpersonal").
Putting them together, yields the fifteen "Descriptive Schema and appropriate terminology for each Interpersonal Need Area":
Score | Inclusion | Control | Affection |
---|
Low e and w | Undersocial
Countersocial | Abdicrat
Rebellious | Underpersonal
Counterpersonal |
---|
High e, low w | Oversocial
Countersocial | Autocrat
Rebellious | Overpersonal
Counterpersonal |
---|
high e and w | Oversocial
Social-compliant | Autocrat
Submissive | Overpersonal
Personal-compliant |
---|
low e, high w | Undersocial
Social-compliant | Abdicrat
Submissive | Underpersonal
Personal-compliant |
---|
moderate e and w | Social | Democrat | Personal |
---|
All of this was part of a larger "Matrix of Relevant Interpersonal Data", which he called "The Elephant". Each area consisted of a smaller matrix of
"act" and
"feel" by
"Self to Other" (Action),
"Other to Self" (Reaction), and
"Self to Self".
"Act" and "Feel" divided the rows, which were:
"Desired Interpersonal Relations (Needs)", which denoted "satisfactory relations" in each area;
"Ideal Interpersonal Relations" is what would correspond to "moderate" expressed and wanted scores;
"Anxious Interpersonal Relations" was subdivided into rows of
"Too much activity" (covering high expressed scores) and
"Too little activity" (covering low expressed scores); both being divided into "Act" and "feel".
The last row was
"Pathological Interpersonal relations", which was divided into "too much" and "too little", yielding:
"Psychotic (Schizophrenia)" as Too Little/Inclusion; (There was no "Too Much/Inclusion")
"Obsessive-compulsive" as Too Much/Control and "Psychopath" as Too Little/Control; and
"Neurotic" as too much and too little Affection.
"Self-to other (action)" corresponded to the expressed dimension, and "Other to self (Reaction)" was the basis for the wanted dimension (though it is phrased in terms of what people
do, rather than what we
want them to do, which would be similar to the later Element B).
It becomes more clear that FIRO is not about inborn type or temperament, but rather dealing in more pathological terms (which would explain why some of the concepts and names; especially Ryan's, are so negative). Moderate behavior is what's "healthy" (or "ideal"), everything else is either "too much" or "too little".
The APS I discuss uses the structure to measure inborn temperament, and it still seems accurate, and appears to correspond with type.
Speaking of
Element B, I should add what I've learned about that system recently as well. It differs in expanding the definitions of Inclusion, Control, and Affection (renamed "Openness"), into an additional six scores to measure how much a person
wants to include, control, and be close to others, and how much
other people include, control, and like to be close to the client. "Expressed" is renamed
"See" (current behaviors) while "Want" remains desired behaviors. Each of the three areas is split into
"Do" (initiating interaction with others) and
"Get" (the level received from others). Differences between See and Want scores indicate levels of dissatisfaction.
I had known that this version split each of the six dimensions, and "I
want to do" made sense as figuring in the person's behavior; I thought what others do (what we "get") wasn't about us; it's about them. But rethinking this, more recently, especially in light of the Johari Window, I guess it should figure also. It
does potentially, at least, tell us somerhing about ourselves.