Psychological Reports, 1992, 70, 915-937.

O Psychological Reports 1992

BEYOND FIRO-B-THREE NEW THEORY-DERIVED

MEASURES-ELEMENT B: BEHAVIOR,
ELEMENT F: FEELINGS, ELEMENT S: SELF '

WILL SCHUTZ
Will Schuh Associates, Mill hlley, California

Summary.-Although the FIRO-B instrument has been used widely for a large
number of purposes, it was not designed as a general purpose instrument. Several years
ago, after revising the FIRO theory underlying the instrument based on over 20 years'
experience with the instrument and related activities, the author revised the FIRO-B
extensively, so extensively it was given a new name, Element B. The new instrument
is much stronger both theoretically and psychometricdy while at the same time retain-
ing the simplicity and shortness of the original. In addition, two new instruments
based on the same theory were designed, developed, and tested. They measure feelings
(Element F) and selF-concept (Element S). All t h e instruments have, over the past 10
years, been used primarily as training instruments. When given in conjunction with
other methods, they have been used for improving self-awareness, teamwork, morale,
and productivity in such organizations as Procter & Gamble, AT&T, NASA, Amdahl
Corporation, the Swedish Army, and about 100 companies in Japan. Included is a com-
ment on scales anchored both logically, using methods such as facet des~gnarid unidi-
mensional scaling, and empirically, such as the "big five."

FIRO
FIRO (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation) is the name of
a theory of interpersonal relations introduced in 1958 (Schutz, 1958) as the
beginning of a formal theory, complete with primitive terms, defined terms,
and postulates. Since that time, "interpersonal" has been expanded to in-
clude all levels of human organization including the body, individuals, cou-
ples, groups, organizations, and nations.
Three areas were postulated to be necessary and sufficient to account
for interpersonal phenomena. On the level of behavior these areas were
c d e d Inclusion, Control, and Affection. The corresponding concepts on the
level of feelings were Significance, Competence, and Likability. Scales were
developed to measure the Expressed and Wanted aspects of these areas. The
measure of behavior was called FIRO-B, the measure of feelings, FIRO-F.
EVOLUTION
The theory and related ideas evolved over the years and have been dis-
cussed in several publications (Schutz, 1955, 1958, 1967, 1977, 1984, 1988).
The 1976 publication, Leaders of Schools, reported the successful testing of
the theory on over 6,000 people from the public school community.
The theory, extended to include the human body, has been used as the

'Address correspondence to W i Schutz, Ph.D., Box 259, Muir Beach, CA 94965.

916 W. SCHUTZ

basis for describing why people choose to succumb to particular illnesses as a

function of their unconscious conflicts in the areas of inclusion, control, and
openness (affection has been changed to openness, see below) (Schutz,
1984).
In 1984, the FIRO theory was used to organize the major theories of
family therapy (Doherty & Colangelo, 1984). The theory is also used as the
basis for classifying approaches to decision-making and to define a new meth-
od of decision-making called Concordance (Schutz, 1987). Then, in 1980, a
major effort was mounted to expand and apply the theory to organizations,
resulting in an organizational workshop called The Human Element. This
work led to significant changes in some aspects of the tlieory and a major re-
vision and expansion of the measuring instruments.
NEW MEASURES
The three new instruments are parts of an integrated series that measure
the fundamental dimensions of individual, interpersonal, team, and organiza-
tion phenomena. Each instrument has a dynamic relationshp with all the
others. These instruments, called Elements, constitute the second generation.
They are derived from the revision, evolution, and development of the the-
ory over the past 37 years. The FIRO-B instrument was published original-
ly in an article called, "What makes teams productive?" in the journal Hu-
man Relations (Schutz, 1955).
The general approach to test construction, administration, and interpre-
tation is similar for all three instruments. Following are descriptions of the
new instruments. Element B: Behavior is a measure of the dimensions of in-
terpersonal behavior: Inclusion, Control, and Openness. Element B is a re-
vision and updating of the FIRO-B. Element F: Feelings is a measure of the
dimensions of interpersonal feelings: Significance, Competence, and Likabil-
ity. Element F is a revision of FIRO-F. Element S: Self is a measure of the
dimensions of the self-concept: Aliveness, Self-determination, Self-aware-
ness, Self-significance, Self-competence, and Self-liking.
EVOLUTION OF FIRO-B TO ELEMENT B
FIRO-B has been used widely in the fields of human relations and per-
sonality over the past 25 years. It was judged "the most generally useful
instrument in training" in a 1976 survey of 75 instruments used in human
relations training (Pfeiffer, Heslin, & Jones, 1976). However, it was not con-
structed to be an instrument for general use. It was constructed to help
compose groups whose members work well together, that is, are compatible.
During the Korean War, Schutz was recalled into the Navy and given
the task of creating a method for constructing effective teams. In the course
of performing experiments to predict team compatibility, he devised the
FIRO theory and the FIRO-B instrument. FIRO-B was designed to help pre-
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 917

dict interaction between two people. For that purpose it was successful (see
Schutz, 1958). There was no evidence it had value for any other purpose
since it had never been applied to any other situation.
In 1966, Consulting Psychologists Press published FIRO-B and, at
about the same time, Schutz entered the Human Potential movement. Fif-
teen years later he emerged to find FIRO-B used widely and to find several
publications describing how to interpret the instrument. Schutz reexamined
FIRO-B and felt it was a good instrument that could be made far better. H e
proceeded to make substantial changes in the instrument while retaining its
simplicity and brevity. The result is Element B, which is seen as a major ad-
vance over FIRO-B.
Reading the published interpretations of FIRO-B, in light of his present
views of psychological instruments, Schutz found these publications did not
reflect the way he would interpret either FIRO-B or Element B. However,
since he had published no guidelines of his own, he had left interpretation to
others by default. For the ways in which the instruments are meant to be in-
terpreted, see Schutz (1987).
Following is a summary of the evolution of Element B from FIRO-B
and a simple conversion method for those who have accumulated FIRO-B
data and wish to use them for comparative purposes. Understanding FIRO-B
may be expanded into an equally clear grasp of Element B.
CHANGES
Element B is derived from the current FIRO theory. FIRO-B is derived
from the original theory of 1955. Following is a summary of developments in
FIRO theory since 1982 and their effect on these instruments.
Affection to Openness
As described above, the FIRO theory postulates three areas for under-
standing human interaction. I n the original theory, at the behavioral level
these areas were called Inclusion, Control, and Affection. Years of experience
showed that the term "affection" was problematic. Respondents were con-
fused sometimes. It was empirically difficult to distinguish affection feelings
from affection behavior in developing the instrument, Life Interpersonal
History Enquiry (LIPHE) (Schutz, 1977). The concept of affection refers
primarily to feelings rather than to behavior. Accordingly, "affection" was
changed to the essential behavioral ingredient of affection, "openness." The
three behavioral dimensions then became inclusion, control, and openness.
All items of the FIRO-B Affection scales have been replaced in Element B
with items that measure Openness. The three dimensions are described be-
low.
Expressed and Wanted
Another change from the original FIRO theory affects the aspects of
9 18 W. SCHUTZ

behavior or feelings measured. In the original F I R 0 instruments, the Ex-

pressed and Wanted aspects of each of the three dimensions are measured.
Closer examination indicated that Expressed and Wanted were not the most
useful categories to use. If it is perceived as the direction of interaction, the
opposite of Expressed is Received.
Wanted is somewhat different. Many concepts may be contrasted with
Wanted depending on the purpose of the investigation. Wanted may be corn-
pared to Should, for example, to explore values, or with Can to explore
beliefs. Since one purpose for using the instrument is to measure personal
satisfaction, the most useful category to contrast with Wanted is See or What
Perceived. See and Want allow for a measure of dissatisfaction, precisely
defined as "the discrepancy between what the respondent perceives to be the
case (See) and what the respondent wants (Want)." Other aspects can also be
used by developing an instrument of similar structure substituting the de-
sired aspect. Should, for example, may be used to measure values. For the
present three instruments, See and Want are used. Accordingly, Element B
asks the respondent to describe Expressed (What I Do Toward You) and Re-
ceived (What I Get From You) behavior (now called Do and Get), and
Perceived (What I See) and Wanted (What I Want) behavior (now called See
and Want). As a result, Element B yields twice as many scores as FIRO-B.
In a counseling setting, exploring the discrepancy between my perceived
status (What I See) and my desired situation (What I Want) is useful for fo-
cusing attention on sources of frustration and areas of desired change.
Response Categories
In FIRO-B, two sets of response categories are used: (1) usually, (2)
often, (3) sometimes, (4) occasionally, (5) rarely, and (6) never, as well as (1)
most people, (2) many people, (3) some people, (4) a few people, (5) one or
two people, and (6) nobody. FIRO-F added a third set, (1) especially true,
(2) true, (3) tends to be true, (4) tends to be not true, (5) not true, and (6)
definitely not true.
Multiple response sets led to three difficulties: (a) Sometimes the same
item content is repeated for each set of responses (for example, FIRO-B
Items 14 and 26, "1 am easily led by people."). This repetition gives the im-
pression the entire item is repeated. (b) The different sets of responses re-
quire the respondent to shift mental set. (c) The words led some respon-
dents into semantic arguments, such as whether "occasionally" is really more
frequent than "rarely."
These difficulties are eliminated in the new Elements which have only
one response set. The responses in this set do not have names. They repre-
sent shades of agreement with each item. This method encourages respon-
dents to use their over-all feeling to respond to the item rather than to con-
cern themselves overmuch with debating the definition of each response
word.
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 919

Multiple categories also led to some confusion because there were too
many numbers on the form. There are three sets of numbers in FIRO-B:
each item is numbered, each possible response is numbered, and the re-
sponses selected are numbered. Some respondents find this confusing. O n
Element B all these numbers are gone. The only numbers remaining are the
final scale scores which result from scoring the instrument. I n addition to
adding clarity, these features explain, in part, why administration time is
no longer for Element B than for FIRO-B, despite the increase in the num-
ber of responses required (on the average, 8 to 12 minutes to complete, an-
other 4 to 6 minutes for self-scoring).
Title
To describe the total instrument, the word Element was chosen to re-
place the word scale. This was done for two reasons. "Scale" is technically
not a correct term. A scale, as usually defined, is a set of items with certain
psychometric properties. This definition applies to each of the nine-item sets
that make up the instrument but not to the instrument as a whole. "Ele-
ment" conveys the idea that each instrument is part of a whole: the human
organism. By dictionary definition, an "element" is "a component or con-
stituent of a whole into which the whole may be resolved by analysis," so use
of Element implies that a better understanding of a total person results from
understanding the elements of a person and the relationships among these
elements.
Item Wording
The wording of the items has been simplified; difficult words, ambigu-
ous qualifiers, and negatively phrased items have virtually been eliminated.
These changes improved the scalability of the items for many scales (see
below).
Simplified Scoring
The new Elements are self-scoring; they do not require separate scoring
templates. While this change is purely utilitarian, it has simplified adminis-
tration. Scoring is a simple, clerical task, accomplished by the respondent
quickly and easily. Self-scoring also provides a more personal connection be-
tween respondent and instrument that makes scores more personally mean-
ingf ul.
Scale Names
The scales that constitute the new Elements are named by declarative
sentences, such as "People control me" or "I like myself" rather than by
single words such as "authoritarian" or "paranoid." This helps to make the
meaning clear. Each scale is scored from 0 to 9. The score indicates the ex-
tent to which the respondent agrees with the scale name. The higher the
score, the greater the agreement. A score of 8, for example, on "I am open
920 W. SCHUTZ

with people" indicates the respondent sees the self as very open with people.
(This is a difference from other instruments. FIRO-B also uses declarative
sentences for scale names.)
"High"Score Solution
Interpretation of what is a high score and what is a low score on the
FIRO-B scales presented a dilemma that had no simple answer. Several alter-
natives were typically used. (a) The range is divided arbitrarily so that 0, 1,
and 2 are called low; 3, 4, 5 , and 6 are called medium; and 7, 8, and 9 are
called high. But mean scores differ radically among subgroups. For example,
a medium score of 5 for an engineer (average 2.1) on "I act close and per-
sonal with people" is extremely high-for an engineer. (b) The score is
compared to that of a reference group. Sales representatives, for example, av-
erage 7.0 on wanting to be included. Therefore, compared to sales repre-
sentatives, a score of 5 is low. However, compared to creative architects (av-
erage 1.7), a score of 5 is very high. (c) One score may be compared with
other scores of a respondent. If the respondent scores 0 on d scales but one,
and 2 on that scale, 2 may be considered high.
All these methods proved unsatisfactory. Using the What I See and
What I Want scoring responses on the Elements provides a more satisfactory
answer by introducing the concept of "Dissatisfaction."
Dissatisfaction
Rather than deciding arbitrarily whether a scale score is high or low, re-
spondents see whether their scale scores, regardless of the size, is the way
they want the scores to be. For example, when they subtract their scores for
What I Want from their scores on What I See, they obtain difference (dis-
satisfaction) scores. Such a score tells them how close the What I See score
is to the ideal, regardless of how high or how low the actual scores are.
If respondents score 4 on "I feel competent" and 4 on "I want to feel
competent," they need not be concerned whether 4 is too high or too low
since they are where they want to be. If they score 6 on "You include me"
and 9 on "I want you to include me," they are not getting what they want
even though, in absolute terms, 6 is a relatively high score. Since what they
see is quite different from what they want, they may want to change.
"Dissatisfactionw-defined as the difference between What I See and
What I Want-may be interpreted in two ways. One is Unhappiness. Respon-
dents may say "People include me" 2, for example, and "I want people to
include me" 8. This difference may be a source of great dissatisfaction in
their lives and lead to much sadness and depression. The second is Recog-
nition. This difference may simply be a recognition of the state in which
they are at the present time. They are not depressed by it. They simply rec-
ognize that things are not the way they want them to be and they are
satisfied with their progress on a path toward changing them. How much of
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 92 1

each of these two possibilities is true is up to each person to determine.

Scores from the Elements, when used alone, do not provide any information
on that point.
CONVERSION OF FIRO-B SCORESTO ELEMENT B SCORES
For those people who have used FIRO-B in the past and do not wish to
lose those data, there is a simple method for converting FIRO-B scores into
Element B scores. (The same method applies when converting FIRO-F to
Element E )
Conversion Method
FIRO-B scores are typically presented in the form given in Table 1. The
symbols refer to the short names for the scales: expressed inclusion (el), ex-
pressed control (eC), expressed affection (eA), wanted inclusion (w'), wanted
TABLE 1
FIRO-B S c w s
I initiate interaction I control people. I act close and personal
with people. with people.
(el) (eC) (eA)
I want to be included. I want people to I want people to get close
control me. and personal with me.
(d) (wc) (wA)

control (wC), wanted affection (wA). To make the conversion, place the
FIRO-B scales in their respective Element B scale boxes as shown in Table
2. Numbers are scale code numbers used to identify the scales on Element

TABLE 2
ELEMENTB SCALES
I include people. I control people. I am open with people.
( 1 1) (21) (3 1)
I want people to I want people to I want people to be
include me. control me. open with me.
(14) (24) (34)

B. These scales may also be symbolized with the FIRO-B designations ex-
cept for replacing (eA)and (wA)with (eO)and (wO),respectively. Table 3 sum-
marizes the conversion.
SCALEDESCRIPTIONSFOR EACHELEMENT
Following is a discussion of the scales of each of the three Elements. In
addition to full descriptions of the scales, mean scores, standard deviations,
reproducibilities, and intercorrelations are provided, together with comments
on some of the data where appropriate.
922 W. SCHUTZ

TABLE 3
CONVERSION
OF FIRO-B SCALES
TO ELEMENT
B SCALES

This FIRO-B Scale: Becomes This Element B Scale:

I initiate interaction with people. (el) I include people. (11)
I control people. (eC) I control people. (21)
I act close and personal with people. (eA) I am open with people. (31)
I want to be included. (w') I want people to include me. (14)
I want people to control me. (wC) I want people to control me. (24)
I want people to get dose and personal I want people to be open with me. (34)
with me. (wA)
Element B then provides six additional
scales:
I want to indude people. (12)
I want to control people. (22)
I want to be open with people. (32)
People include me. (13)
People control me. (23)
People are open with me. (33)

Scaling Method
Each instrument is composed of six scales developed by means of the
Guttman scaling technique (Guttman, 1950; Shye, 1978). Guttman scaling
is a technique for deriving a scale measuring one and only one dimension. I t
provides a criterion for determining whether one or more dimensions are be-
ing measured by a set of items and for determining the order of popularity
of the items. Application of the Guttman method results in a short, reliable
scale of items all measuring the same dimension and capable of discriminat-
ing differences among people in their attitudes along that dimension.
Guttman scaling provides a stringent criterion for finding whether the
scale is contaminated with another dimension (for example: Is a low score on
"I control people" partly a measure of the respondent's reluctance to choose
extreme answer categories?). If the scale has a sufficient reproducibility (see
below), it is virtually certain that only one dimension is being measured.
This feature gives confidence that the items are measuring exactly what the
scale is named. In addition, the content of the items of each scale was tested
for logical fit-determined to be instances of the scale definition-by the
method of dichotomous decisions (Schutz, 1950).
ELEMENT
B: BEHAVIOR
The Basic Behaviors
From the time we are children we all function in three areas of behav-
ior: Inclusion, Control, and Openness. When these are fully expressed, we
can call them Fame, Power, and Love.
Inclusion.-The area of inclusion concerns achieving the right amount of
contact with people. Some people like a great deal o i inclusion. They are
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 923

outgoing, like to go to parties, to do things with a group, and to start con-

versations with strangers. Other people prefer to be alone. They like to be
by themselves, they are more reserved, they seldom start conversations, they
avoid parties. We all differ as to how much we desire to be with other peo-
ple and how much we wish to be alone-how much we want to be in groups
and how much we want to avoid groups. Inclusion has to do with In or Out.
Control.-The second area concerns achieving the right amount of con-
trol over people. Some people are more comfortable when they are in charge
of everyone. They like to be the boss, to give orders, to make decisions both
for themselves and for others. Other people prefer to have no control over
others. They are content never to tell people what to do. They even seek out
situations where they have no responsib&ty. AU of us have some desire to
control people and some desire to be free from controlling. We vary in the
amount we like to be on top and in the amount we want to be free from be-
ing controlled by others. Control has to do with Top and Bottom.
Openness.-The third area concerns achieving just the right amount of
openness. Some people enjoy relationshps with others where they talk about
their feelings, their secrets, and their innermost thoughts. They enjoy having
one or, at most, a few people in whom they confide. Other people prefer to
avoid being open with people. They would rather keep relationships imper-
sonal and prefer to have acquaintances rather than a few close friends.
Everyone has some desire for open relations and some desire to keep their
relations more private. Openness differs from inclusion in that a person hlgh
on inclusion and low on openness likes contact with many people but does
not express personal feelings toward them. A person high on openness and
low on inclusion is open with a small number of people. People differ in how
much they like to be open and how much they like to be closed. Openness
has to do with Open and Closed.
It is neither good nor bad to prefer any of these behaviors over others.
It is helpful to be aware of what one prefers and to be aware of the prefer-
ences of others with whom one deals. Element B measures two aspects for
each of the three behavioral dimensions, as shown in Table 4. The cell en-
tries are the names of the scales in Element B.
Reliability
The coefficient of internal consistency is the measure based on internal
analysis data obtained on a single trial. Essentially this measure indicates the
extent to which the items are homogeneous or measure the same thing. The
usual test for internal consistency is the split-half method, i.e., the correla-
tion between scores on two halves of the test. However, since the scales
of all three Elements are Guttman scales, reproducibility is the appropriate
measure of internal consistency. If the items have t h s property, their uni-
dimensionality is established.
924 W. SCHUTZ

TABLE 4
E L E ~ E NB:T BEHAVIOR
(SCALENAMES)

Perceived (See) Wanted (Want)

Expressed (Do)
Inclusion I include people. I want to include people.
Control I control people. I want to control people.
Openness I am open with people. I want to be open with people.
Received (Get)
Inclusion People include me. I want people to include me.
Control People control me. I want people to control me.
Openness People are open with me. I want people to be open with me.

The usual criterion for reproducibility is that about 90 percent of all re-
sponses are predictable from knowledge of scale scores only. The Element B
scales were developed on 50 subjects (students in an adult education class,
25 women, ages 22 to 54 years) and the reproducibility computed (see Table
5). Development included dichotomizing each item at a variety of cutting
points within the answer categories to maximize the reproducibility. The re-
sulting scale of nine dichotomized items was then tested for reproducibility
on 150 additional subjects (43 personnel from NASA, 23 from army intelli-
gence, 84 college students; 68 women, 82 men). If the reproducibility was
not stable, additional subjects were used or items were revised until stability
was achieved. Additional subjects were required for "I include people" (Total
N = 212). This process resulted in twelve scales of nine items each. The re-
producibility of d scales was satisfactory, ranging from 89 to 93, as shown
in Table 5. Although each item was presented to the respondent with six
possible answers, it was scored as a dichotomy-agree or disagree-dictated
by the empirical distributions of number of responses for each answer possi-
bility-a standard procedure for Guttman scaling (see Guttman, 1950). The
scale score is the number of items with which there is agreement, 0 to 9.
TABLE 5
Y MEANSFORSCALESOF E L ~ E NB T
R E P R O D U C I B ~AND

Scale Scale
I include people. I want to indude people.
I control people. I want to control people.
I am open with people. I want to be open with people.
People include me. I want people to include me.
People control me. I want people to control me.
People are open with me. I want people to be open with me.
M M

Stability
The FIRO-B scales had a mean test-retest coefficient of .76 (interval of
three weeks). Given the aforementioned psychometric similarity of the in-
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 925

struments, that figure may be taken as an approximation of the stability of

the scales of Element B. However, in using the Elements in work with indi-
viduals and groups, Schutz (1984) has emphasized the concept of personal
choice-you choose your own behavior and feelings-as a pragmatic concept
that does not preclude learning that any trait is changeable. Such a view
leads to a reexamination of this traditional measure of reliability. Test-retest
is a measure of the permanence of the trait being measured. Is it relatively
unchangeable, perhaps even genetic (genotype or trait), or is it a highly vol-
atile, temporary mood swing (phenotype or state)? The concept of choice
suggests that, for this purpose, that distinction is irrelevant since all traits
and states are regarded as changeable at the will of the changer, assuming
sufficient self-awareness and accessibility of knowledge of how to change.
The scales are presented from this standpoint. High stability of a person's
scores over time is interpreted more as a decision by the respondent not to
change rather than as a property of the trait being measured.
In many cases, high stability is not desirable since these scales are often
used to measure change in self-knowledge leading to personal change. The
scales are understood as expressing "the way I am choosing to be right now."
Norms
Age and sex mean scores are given for Element B in Table 6. Interpreta-
tion of these means may be done more adequately in conjunction with some
intercorrelations among scales of Element B and FIRO-B. Table 7 presents
these data.
Characteristics of Age and Sex Norms for Element B
Over-all differences in sex and age are quite striking. Follow-up studies
should be illuminating both for subcultural differences and generational dif-
ferences and, in the long run, developmental differences.
Women score significantly higher than men on three scales (all scales are
scored from 0 to 9): People include me (4.7 vs 3 . 3 , People are open with me
(3.7 vs 2.7), and I want people to include me (5.9 vs 5.0). All of these are
sociability scales. The three together support the stereotype that women tend
to include each other while men maintain more independence. This finding
is supported by the results of three scales which indicate a similar result but
not quite as large. Women are also higher on I include people (5.2 vs 4.6), I
want to include people (6.0 vs 5.2), and I want to be open with people (4.5
vs 3.9). If the means for d four inclusion scales and all four openness scales
are added, the result is clearer. O n Inclusion the women's mean was 5.5, the
men's was 4.6, and on Openness the women's was 4.1, the men's was 3.4.
The picture on control is opposite and also follows the cultural stereo-
type. Men are higher on I want to control people (5.0 vs 3.9); however, there
is no significant difference on I control people, People control me, or I want
926 W. SCHUTZ

TABLE 6
AGE AND SEX MEANSFOR ELEMENTB ( N = 312)

Age Intervals Age Intervals

<20 20-29 30-39 40-49 49 + Total <20 20-29 30-39 40-49 49 + Total
I include people. I want to indude people.
Women 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.9 6.1 5.8 5.4 5.4 6.0
Men 4.8 4.2 4.1 4.7 6.9 5.2 5.3 4.5 5.2 5.2
Total 5.0 4.4 4.6 5.0 6.9 5.6 5.5 4.8 5.2 5.6
I control people. Iwant to control people.
Women 3.4 3.8 3.4 2.3 3.9 3.8 4.5 3.5 2.5 3.9
Men 3.1 4.4 3.8 2.5 4.9 5.0 5.5 4.9 4.4 5.0
Total 3.3 4.2 3.6 2.5 4.4 4.4 5.0 4.4 4.0 4.6
I am open with people. I want to be open with people.
Women 4.3 3.6 3.4 3.5 4.6 5.2 4.3 3.7 3.1 4.5
Men 3.5 3.0 3.1 3.2 4.7 4.4 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.9
Total 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 4.6 4.9 3.9 3.6 3.6 4.2
People include me. Iwant people to include me.
Women 5.1 3.5 3.9 3.1 7.6 6.4 5.5 5.0 4.9 5.9
Men 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.0 6.3 4.9 5.1 4.1 4.7 5.0
Total 4.5 3.3 3.4 3.0 7.0 5.7 5.3 4.4 4.7 5.4
People contml me. I want people to control me.
Women 4.3 4.2 4.3 6.2 5.0 2.6 2.9 3.4 5.6 3.2
Men 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.6 2.2 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.2
Total 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.9 3.5 2.7 3.0 3.6 4.0 3.2
People are open with me. I want people to be open with me.
Women 3.1 3.8 3.4 4.0 5.9 4.8 4.0 3.3 4.0 4.4
Men 3.0 2.4 2.9 2.3 6.2 4.2 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.9
Total 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.6 6.0 4.5 3.9 3.3 3.4 4.1
Number of Subjects by Age
<20 20-29 30-39 40-49 49 + Total
Women 19 49 44 20 8 140
Men 18 38 59 31 26 172
Total 37 87 103 51 34 312

people to control me. Apparently the sex difference in the area of control is
male desire, not actuality.
Age trends are interpretable as generational rather than developmental
differences since the scales were administered to all age groups at the same
time rather than given to the same persons over time. The largest age differ-
ences are these: People include me (below age 20 yr. = 6.0; above age 49
yr. = 3.0); I want people to include me (below age 20 yr. = 7.0; over age 40
yr. = 4.5); I want people to be open with me (below 20 yr. = 6.0; above 40
yr. = 3.3). The sociability factors are more prominent among younger respon-
dents. The desire for contact and openness is very high in people under 20
years old. (Mean total scores for these three scales: below 20 yr. = 6.3; above
49 yr. = 3.7.) There is even a sharp drop in the 20- to 29-yr. age group.
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 927

Either a new ethic is growing in adolescents or perhaps attitudes change

with age.
Mean scores on some scales show peaks at certain ages: I want to con-
trol people increases to age 30-39 years then declines. I include people de-
clines through 30-39 years for women (40-49 years for men) then increases.
I want people to be open with me decreases with age. CIearly there are
significant age differences. Perhaps values about interpersonal relations are
a
undergoing sharp change especially among adolescents. The change related
to growing older must be studied before such an interpretation can be evalu-
ated. These scales appear quite sensitive to these changes and further re-
search should prove quite fascinating.
Intercorrelations of Element B Scales and of FIRO-B Scales
The main observation about the intercorrelation matrix (Table 7) is the
change in the openness scales. If openness is a clearer concept than affec-
tion, it might be expected to show a smaller correlation with the inclusion
and control scales than did affection. In fact, it shows a dramatically smaller
correlation, especially for the expressed openness (I am open with people)
scale. The mean correlation of both expressed (Do) and wanted (Get) (I want
people to be open with me) openness scales on Element B with the four in-
clusion and control scales is .17, while the mean correlation of the two
affection scales on FIRO-B with those four scales is .27. The difference in
mean correlation of the four inclusion and control scales with expressed
openness and with expressed affection was even more pronounced, . I 4 vs
.28. This result provides evidence that openness as measured by Element B
is more independent of inclusion and control than is affection in FIRO-B.
The remaining correlations are similar to those obtained on FIRO-B.

TABLE 7
PEARSON
INTERCORRELATIONS
OF SCALESON ELEMENT
B AND FIRO-B*
I include people. 49 12 08 47 27
I want to include people. 53 06 06 24 24
Icontrol people. 19 07 07 19 31
I want to control people. 11 09 -18 22 22
I am open with people. 21 15 09 12 42
I want to be open with people. 37 26 13 02 53
*Intercorrelations of FIRO-B scales are above the diagonal, of Element B scales below the di-
agonal.

The Basic Feelings

The F I R 0 theory asserts there are three basic feelings, Significance,
Competence, and Likability. They parallel, respectively, the behavior dimen-
92 8 W. SCHUTZ

sions of inclusion, control, and openness, as described above. With respect

to the three basic feelings, Element F examines:
How I (the respondent) feel about people.
How I think people feel about me.
How I want to feel about people.
How I want people to feel about me.
Significance.-I feel people are significant when they exist for me, they
mean something to me, they are of importance to me. Conversely, I try to
find out from other people whether they feel I am significant. I notice
whether people pay attention to me or ignore me, whether they remember
me or miss me when I am gone.
For a young child, being touched and being paid attention to communi-
cates that parents feel the child is important. Workers often get their feeling
of significance from others through being considered, talked to, recognized,
and acknowledged. Feeling significant does not mean necessarily feeling com-
petent or feeling likable. It means simply counting for something-existing.
Competence.-I feel someone is competent if I feel the person has the
capacity to cope with the world, to use personal abilities to satisfy wants, to
be able to handle problems that arise in the course of living. "Competence"
refers to the ability to hold a job, to be self-sufficient, and to achieve some-
thing substantial in the way of material goods. Competence typically has to
d o with the ability to make decisions and to solve problems. Children are
given the message they are competent when they are given responsibility and
allowed to undertake difficult tasks on their own. When children are severely
restricted and have everything done for them, their parents are giving them
the message that the children are not competent to make their own deci-
sions.
Likability.-Likability is based on the ability to create an atmosphere
within which people like themselves. I find you likable if I like how I be-
have and feel in your presence. Paradoxically, my liking has little to d o with
you. I like you if I like myself when I am with you. People may be signifi-
cant and competent but not likable as, for example, successful criminals or
repressive dictators. When parents reject children they are usually communi-
cating they d o not find the children likable. They convey this feeling by not
being happy when they are with their children. Children often get the feel-
ing that "there must be something wrong with me."
Element F,the successor to FIRO-F, measures the same aspects of these
feeling dimensions as does Element B. Table 8 describes these measures.
Again, the cell entries are the names of the scales in Element F.
Reproducibility
Table 9 presents reproducibilities and means for Element F. The higher
mean scores on the Wanted scales indicates that people want more feeling
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 929

TABLE 8
ELEMENTF: FEELINGS(SCALENAMES)
Perceived (See) Wanted (Want)
Expressed (Do)
Significance I feel people are significant. I want to feel people are significant.
Competence I feel people are competent. I want to feel people are competent.
Likability I like people. I want to like people.
Received (Get)
Significance People f e d I am significant. I want people to feel I am significant.
Competence People feel I am competent. I want people to feel I am competent.
Likability People like me. I want people to like me.

than they express or receive. The skewness toward the high end of these
scales is probably unavoidable because it would appear that most people
want to have positive feelings about others and want others to feel good
about them.
These scales were derived and reproducibhty computed on 50 subjects,
then tested on 50 more. If the reproducibility was not stable, further groups
of 50 were tested (the population was the same as that for Element B). For
Element F, all scales achieved stability after 100 cases had been included.
TABLE 9
AND MEANS
REPRODUCIBI~~~Y FOR SCALESOF ELEMENTF

Scale R M SD Scale R M SD
I feel people are significant. 9 1 4.7 2.3 Iwanttofeelpeoplearesignificant. 91 6.4 2.2
I feel people are competent. 92 3.4 2.4 Iwant to feel people are competent. 91 7.2 2.3
I like people. 92 3.7 2.3 Iwant to like people. 91 6.6 2.2
People feel I am significant. 9 1 4.7 2.1 I want people to feel I am significant. 97 7.3 2.0
People feel I am competent. 9 1 3.8 2.6 I want people to feel I am competent. 97 7.5 2.3
People like me. 89 4.7 2.8 I want people to like me. 96 8.0 2.2
M 91 M 94

Interpretation of the scales is done best by reference to reproducibility

and scale means (Table 9), age and sex means (Table lo), and intercorrela-
tions among scales (Table 11).
Characteristics of Sex and Age Norms for Element F
Women, more than men, feel people regard them as more significant,
and they want to feel people are more significant. Women, more than men,
feel people like them more, but men want people to like them more.
In the case of the first five, "See" scales, scores rise directly with age.
As age increases, respondents feel people are more significant, feel people are
more competent, like people more, believe people feel they are more signifi-
cant, and believe people feel they are more competent. The interesting
exception to this trend is on liking. People of all ages feel liked by other
people to about the same extent.
930 W. SCHUTZ

TABLE 10
AGEAND SEX ~ N FOR
S SCUS OF F (N = 200)
ELEMENT
Age Intervals Age Intervals
20-29 30-39 40-49 49 + Total 20-29 30-39 40-49 49 + Total
I feel people are significant. I want to feel people are significant.
Women 4.6 5.4 5.8 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.9 6.7 5.6 6.4
Men 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.3 4.8 5.0 6.0 5.8 6.5 6.0
Total 4.7 5.1 5.0 5.2 5.0 5.6 6.5 6.1 6.1 6.2
I feel people are competent. Iwant to feel people are competent.
Women 2.4 4.1 4.9 4.5 4.0 6.6 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2
Men 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.4 6.1 6.4 6.1 6.9 6.4
Total 2.7 3.7 4.0 4.1 3.7 6.4 6.9 6.6 7.1 6.8
I Like people. I want to like people.
Women 3.8 4.5 5.2 4.8 4.5 6.1 6.6 6.5 6.2 6.4
Men 3.8 4.7 4.5 5.3 4.6 6.3 6.7 6.5 7.8 6.8
Total 3.8 4.6 4.8 5.1 4.6 6.2 6.7 6.5 7.1 6.6
People feel I am significant. I want people to feel I am significant.
Women 3.8 5.0 5.2 5.3 4.9 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.1 7.3
Men 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.2 4.2 5.8 7.0 6.5 7.4 6.8
Tocal 3.9 4.8 4.9 5.2 4.5 6.6 7.3 6.7 7.3 7.0
People feel I am competent. I want people to feel I am competent.
Women 3.7 4.3 4.5 5.3 4.4 7.6 7.7 6.9 7.2 7.4
Men 3.5 4.3 4.6 5.6 4.5 7.4 7.4 6.9 7.7 7.3
Total 3.6 4.3 4.6 5.5 4.5 7.5 7.5 6.9 7.5 7.4
People like me. I want people to like me.
Women 4.8 5.5 5.8 4.5 5.3 6.7 7.5 6.3 6.9 7.0
Men 5.1 3.9 5.1 5.7 4.8 7.2 7.5 7.3 8.1 7.5
Total 4.9 4.8 5.3 5.2 5.0 6.9 7.5 6.9 7.6 7.2
Number of Subjects by Age
20-29 30-39 40-49 49 + Total
Women 20 42 19 17 98
Men 14 34 33 21 102
Total 34 76 52 38 200

Intercorrelations among Element F scales are, with a few exceptions,

markedly lower than those among corresponding FIRO-F scales (mean .26 vs
3 4 ) . The reasons for this are quite different from those underlying the lower
TABLE 11
MSON
INTERCORR~~TIONS
OF SCALES
ON ELEMENT
F AND FIRO-F'
I include people. 25 36 20 50 28
I want to include people. 12 20 55 28 58
I control people. 02 06 18 39 25
I want to control people. 18 55 -01 26 47
I am open with people. 57 16 49 -11 40
Iwant to be open with people. -08 76 10 54 09
*Intercorrelations of FIRO-F scales are above the diagonal, of Element F scales below the di-
agonal.
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 93 1

correlations on Element B compared with those for FIRO-B. Whereas the

content of two FIRO-B scales was changed, the differences in the two F
instruments result from editing: answer categories were reduced to one set
from three, all items were put in standard form, the number of negative
items was reduced, difficult vocabulary was replaced, and loaded terms such
as "annoyed," "bothers," and "pleased" were eliminated. Apparently, these
changes clarified each dimension sufficiently that respondents answered the
items with more discrimination than respondents to the FIRO-F items. Fur-
ther evidence that the revision clarified the dimensions comes from the
greater reproducibilities of Element F. Mean reproducibility for scales of
FIRO-F is .90 while mean reproducibility for the corresponding scales of El-
ement F is .94. Reproducibility is higher for each one of the six scales of
Element F.
The standard deviations of the scales of Element F show a consistent
pattern, not true of Element B. All the Wanted scales have a lower standard
deviation than their corresponding See, or Perceived, scale. People appar-
ently are more in agreement on their goals for feelings they want to have
toward and from other people than they are on the feeling itself. For exam-
ple, the standard deviation of People like me was 2.8, while for I want
people to like me it was 2.2. People are more consistent about wanting to be
liked (means are 7.1 for Want, 5.6 for See) than they are about whether they
are liked.
ELEMENTS: SELF
The areas of the self that comprise the self-concept are those that have
already been examined in Element B and Element F: Behavior (inclusion,
control, and openness) and Feelings (significance, competence, and likabil-
ity). To explore the self-concept respondents examine how they perceive
themselves, rather than exploring how they behave toward other people (El-
ement B) and feel about other people (Element F). To understand the
self-concept, they ask: How do I behave toward myself and how do I feel
about myself? Below are descriptions of the three behavior areas and the
three feelings areas applied to the self.
Description of Scales
Aliveness (Self-inclusion).-To include myself means to use all parts of
myself-my thoughts, feelings, sensations, movements-in whatever I am do-
ing. This dimension is called "aliveness." I am not fully alive when I stop
thinking, suppress feelings, am unaware of sensations, or do not use my mus-
cles. To the extent I do this, I am not experiencing, I am not being fully
alive.
Sometimes I am not as alive as I want to be. I have a dead or tired or
blank feeling. Nothing stimulates me. I am bored. I do not feel any feelings.
I am insensitive to my environment. I do not differentiate sensations. My
932 W. SCHUTZ

body does not feel anything. If I am led to taking drugs, I take "uppers" as
an attempt to feel something so as to avoid malaise, the feeling of deadness.
Sometimes I am more alive than I want to be. Life is too painful.
Thinking is too difficult, too unrewarding. Feelings of jealousy, anger, rejec-
tion, humiliation are too much to handle. Sensations are unpleasant, like
suffocating heat, or bitter cold, or acidity, or loudness, or pain. My body
hurts, aches, or pains me and is not responsive. I do not feel present. If I re-
sort to drugs, I take "downers" to "zone out," to numb myself, to escape my
unpleasant experience.
Self-determination (Self-cont~ol).-To be high on self-determination means
I am deciding how I live my life. I determine my own thoughts, feelings,
movements, health, and spontaneity. I can decide what comes next for me.
When I am low on self-determination, .my life is determined by factors
out of my control-luck, coincidence, destiny, being at the right place at the
right time, needs, heredity, preordination. I have no control over what is
coming next.
Sometimes I may feel I determine my own life more than I want to. I
would like to have something else determine my life-another person, God,
fate, luck-anything other than myself. Self-determination implies growing
up, being an adult, being responsible for myself. Sometimes that feels like a
burden and I would like going back to being a dependent child.
At other times I may feel like I want more control over my fate. I feel
what happens to me is out of my control. Other people, or organizations, or
society, or parents, or children, or the powers that be are doing it all and I
have no way to stop them and recapture my own direction. I sometimes am
not pleased with my own wiUingness or ability to assert myself and stand up
for what I want.
Self-awareness (Self-openness).-To be open with myself means I am
aware of everything going on inside of me. If I am high on self-awareness, I
am conscious of my own thoughts, feelings, movements, and the state of my
body parts (that is, my health).
When I am low on self-awareness I do not know why I do certain
things and why I feel certain ways. I am a mystery to myself. I cannot figure
out why I feel so bad at certain times or why my life is not going the way I
want it to.
Sometimes I may feel I am more aware than I want to be. Certain un-
pleasant things I would rather not experience; certain thoughts I would
rather not entertain. I t might be better not to be so aware. (Of course, at a
higher level, if I had even higher awareness, I would be able to know why
these unwanted things are happening to me.)
At other times I wish I were more aware of what is happening. I would
not be such a mystery to myself. It is hard for me to change anything about
myself if I do not know what is going on inside me.
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 933

Self-significance.-Self-significance refers to feeling significant, impor-

tant, worthwhile, meaningful, and of value, as opposed to feeling unim-
portant, meaningless, and of no value. (The same descriptions presented
above for the three feelings also apply to the three feelings toward the self.)
Self-competence.-Self-competence refers to feelings of competence, in-
telligence, ability, and strength as opposed to feelings of weakness, impo-
tence, ineptness, incompetence, and inability to cope.
Self--like.-Self-like refers to feeling good in my own presence, that is,
being alone, anticipating enjoying myself in any social situation, trusting that
what I will do will always conform to my own standards for a likable person,
as opposed to not enjoying my own company, being afraid that at any mo-
ment a side of myself I do not like will emerge.
In Table 12 below is a summary of the scale names of Element S. Table

TABLE 12
ELEMENTS: SELF (SCALENAMES)

See Want
Inclusion I am alive. I want to be alive.
Control I determine my own life. I want to determine my own life.
Awareness I am aware of myself. I want to be aware of myself.
Significance I feel significant. I want to feel significant.
Competence I feel competent. I want to feel competent.
Likability I like myself. I want to like myself.

13 presents the reproducibility and means for the scales of Element S. As

with the other two elements, these figures are well within the acceptable lim-
its for reproducibility. Since there is no FIRO-S, there can be no comparison
of the intercorrelations, therefore only intercorrelations for the Element S

TABLE 13
REPRODUCIB~UTYAND MEANSFORSCALESOF ELEMENTS (N = 275)

Scale R M SD Scale R M SD
I am alive. 89 4.9 2.0 I want to be alive. 96 8.0 1.2
I determine my own life. 87 4.3 2.3 I want to determine my own life. 89 4.9 2.2
Iam aware of myself. 92 4.8 2.1 I want to be aware of myself. 94 7.7 1.4
Ifeel significant. 91 5.1 2.7 I want to feel significant. 94 7.4 1.3
Ifeel competent. 94 5.0 2.1 I want to feel competent. 95 7.6 1.1
I like myself. 93 5.1 2.3 I want to like myset£. 93 7.5 1.3
M 91 M 93

scales are given in Table 14. Table 15 presents sex and age norms for Ele-
ment S.
Characteristics of Norms for Element S Scales
The above description shows, as in the other Elements, people want to
934 W. SCHUTZ

TABLE 14
INTERCORRELATIONS
PEARSON (DO)SCALESOF E L ~ NS (N
OF PERCEIVED T = 175)
I am alive. 21 41 54 62 56
I determine my own life. 23 24 28 33
I am aware of myself. 18 52 51
I feel significant. 62 61
I feel competent. 68
I feel likable.

be more than they are. A peculiar result that may be interpreted culturally is
that women were more consistent in their responses than men on self-deter-
mination. Reproducibility for women was .91 and for men .84. This might
indicate that the area of self-determination is more confused for men. The

TABLE 15
AGEAND SEX MEANS
FORE L F ~ E SN(N
T = 275)
Age Intervals Age Intervals
20-29 30-39 40-49 49 + Total 20-29 30-39 40-49 49 + Total
I am alive. I want to be alive.
Women 6.2 5.5 4.6 6.0 5.6 8.2 8.8 8.3 8.2 8.4
Men 6.2 6.1 5.8 5.2 5.8 8.6 8.3 8.4 7.7 8.3
Total 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.6 5.7 8.4 8.6 8.3 8.0 8.3
I determine my own life. I want to determine my own life.
Women 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 5.4 5.3
Men 4.2 4.9 5.0 5.1 4.8 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.4 5.6
Total 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.7 5.2 5.4 5.9 ' 5.4 5.4
I am aware of myself. I want to be aware of myself.
Women 5.1 5.6 5.0 8.4 8.3 7.8 7.6 8.0
Men 5.3 5.1 5.5 7.6 7.9 7.5 7.0 7.5
Total 5.2 5.3 5.2 8.0 8.1 7.7 7.3 7.8
I feel sigdicant. I want to feel sigdicant.
Women 5.4 5.3 4.3 7.5 8.4 8.2 7.7 8.0
Men 5.2 5.2 6.1 7.8. 7.3 7.7 7.3 7.5
Total 5.3 5.2 5.5 7.6 7.9 8.0 . 7.5 7.8
I feel competent. I want to feel competent.
Women 5.3 5.4 4.3 7.6 8.2 8.2 7.3 7.8
Men 5,3 5.9 5.6 7.9 7.7 7.8 7.6 7.8
Total 5.3 5.7 4.7 7.8 8.0 8.0 7.4 7.8
I like myself. I want to like myself.
Women 6.5 6.3 5.4 7.9 7.8 8.4 7.6 7.9
Men 5.3 5.3 4.5 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.1 7.4
Total 5.9 5.8 5.1 7.8 7.6 8.0 7.4 7.7
Number of Subjects by Age
20-29 30-39 40-49 49 + Total
Women 51 30 32 23 136
Men 42 37 49 11 139
Total 93 67 81 34 275
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 935

largest sex difference is in the area of competence. Men say they feel more
competent than women, at all ages. To less extent women, more than men,
like themselves and want to like themselves. Women, more than men, also
have a tendency to want to be aware and to want to feel significant. There is
a general self-regard or self-esteem factor (mean correlation = .64 among I
feel significant, I feel competent, I like myself). There is little relation be-
tween how people see themselves and how they would U e to be.
DISCUSSION
The construction of the Elements uses facet design and the unidimen-
sional scaling of Guttman. For the theory-based instruments presented here,
facet design is an appropriate tool since it is important to have conceptual
clarity among all the items that comprise a scale purporting to measure the
content defined by the scale title. In reviewing the work done on facet de-
sign, ~ i o w n(1985) states, "In briefly recapitulating the many and various
uses of facet design . . ., a major theme reiterated by the investigators has
been the importance of conceptual clarity. The principles of facet design aid
clearer thinking in outlining the content of a study or lending new insights
to secondary analysis. . . . Facet analysis has been used because of the failure
of other methods. . . . Facet theory offers a genuine step forward in the sci-
entific activity of social researchers" (p. 54). A careful facet design was done
on the variables of this theory (see Table 16) and on the content of the items
given to judges to assure logical agreement between the item content and the
definition of the scale. The scale name is always given as a declarative sen-
tence so the scale score can be unequivocally interpreted in terms of the
extent to which the respondent agrees with the scale name. This procedure
has been followed by others, Gessler (1981), for example. I n the present case
a statistic designed for this purpose was used (Schutz, 1952).
Much of the recent work on the factors of personality do not appear to
involve facet design as a central aspect of the approach. It is therefore dilfi-
cult to compare their data with the present data. The "big five factors"
(Zuckerman, 1991; Smith & KihIstrom, 1987), for example, appear to mea-
sure phenomena from different facets. Extraversion or Surgency is a descrip-
tion of behavior (related to high Inclusion), while Agreeableness and Consci-
entiousness are dimensions of the evaluation of behavior. Similarly Intellect is
clearly a cognitive dimension, while Emotional Stability is an evaluation of an
emotional state.
High factor loadings or high correlations are also seen in a somewhat
different light using the facet analysis. Using a facet design means that the
facet measured is of inherent interest even if it is highly correlated with
other measures. For example, I feel competent (scale 50 on Element S) is
correlated .53 with I like myself (scale 60 on Element S). To reduce those
two scales to one measure would lose important information. There is proba-
 TABLE 16
FACETDESIGNFOR ELEMENTS B, F, S, AND OTHERS
-- - - - - -- -

Interpersonal: Do Interpersonal: Get Individual Other

Self (I) to Other (You) Other (You) to Self (I) Self (I) to Self (I) Other ( 0 ) to Other ( 0 )
See Want See Want See Want See Want
Inclusion I include you. I want to You include I want you to I am fully I want to be You are fully I want you to
include you. me. include me. alive. fully alive. alive. be fully alive.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Control I control you. I want to You control I want you to I determine I want to You determine I want you to
control you. me. control me. my own life. determine your own life. determine
my own life. your own life.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Openness I am open I want to be You are open I want you to I am aware of I want to be You are aware I want you to
with you. open with with me. be open with myself. aware of of yourself. be aware of
you. me. myself. yourself. e
31 32 34 35 36 37 38
5
-- - --

Significance I feel you are I want to feel You feel I am I want you to I feel I want to feel You feel I want you
significant. you are significant. feel I am significant. significant. significant. to feel +I
N
significant. significant. significant.
41 42 43 44 48
Competence I feel you are I want to feel You feel I am I want you to I feel I want to feel You feel I want you
competent. you are competent. feel I am competent. competent. competent. to feel
competent. competent. competent.
52 53 54 58
Likability 1like you. I want to like I want you to
You like me. I like myself. I want to like You like I want you to
you. like me. myself. like yourself.
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Note.-Each cell is to be regarded as a dimension varying from 0 to 9. The facets are: (3) Area o f ~ e h a v i o r * :~ n c k s i o n x o n t r o l ,openness; ( 3 ) ~ r e a
of Feeling*: Significance, Competence, Likability; (4) Direction: Do (I to You), Get (You to Me), Self (Me to Me), Other (Xou to You); and (2)
0 eration: Perceive (See), Desire (Want). Element B measures content of cells: 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34 (upper left quadrant).
~ t m e n Ft measures content of cells: 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64 (lower left quadrant). Element S measures content of cells: 15,
25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 16, 26, 36, 46, 56, 66 (fifth and sixth columns). Other cell combinations are measured by instruments not described here.
*For a strict facet design, a separate chart would be made for Behavior and for Feelings (24 cells each). They are combined here to show the rela-
tions of all three Elements more clearly.
 ELEMENTS: BEHAVIOR, FEELINGS, SELF 937

bly a general self-esteem factor in both measures, but there is also much to
be learned about people who Iike themselves and do not feel competent, and
people who feel competent and d o not like themselves. This exploration is
possible and has proved extremely useful.
REFERENCES
BROWN,J. An introduction to the use of facet theory. In D. Canter (Ed.), Facet theory: ap-
proaches to social research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985. Pp. 24-55.
DOHERTY, W., & COLANGELO, N. The Family FIRO Model: a modest proposal for orgsnrzing
family treatment. Journal of Maritaland Family Therapy, 1984, 11, 299-303.
GESSLER, S. An evaluation of a community oriented residential unit for mentally handjcapped
people by staff and parents. Unpublished thesis, Univer. of Surrey, Guilford, 1981.
GUTTMAN,L. The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Srouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Such-
man, P. F. Lazarsfeld, S. A. Star, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and prediction.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer. Press, 1950. Pp. 60-90.
PFEIFFER,J. W., HESUN, R., & JONES, J. Instrumen&tion in human relations training: a guide to
behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) San Diego, CA: University Associates, 1976.
SCHUTZ,W. Theory and methodolo of content analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Univer. of California, Los ~ n ~ z1950.s ,
SCHUTZ,W. Reliability, ambiguity and content analysis. Psychological Review, 1952, 59, 119-
129.
SCHUTZ,W. What makes groups productive? Human Relations, 1955, 8, 429-465.
SCHUTZ,W. FIRO: a three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Rinehart,
1958. [(jrd ptg.) Mill Valley, CA: WSA, 1989.1
SCHUTZ,W. Joy. New York: Grove (and Ballantine), 1967.
Sc+nrrz, W. The FIR0 awareness scales. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1977.
SCHUTZ,W. The truth option. Berkeley, CA: Tenspeed, 1984.
SCHUTZ,W. Concordance: decision making. Mill Valley, CA: WSA, 1987.
SCHUTZ,W. Guide to Element B. Mill Valley, CA: WSA, 1987.
SCHUTZ,W. Leoders of schools. Mill Valley, CA: WSA, 1988. (Original publication, San Diego,
CA: University Associates, 1976)
SCHUTZ,W., & KRASNOW, E. An IBM 704-709 program for Guttman scaling. Behaviors[
Science, 1964, 9, 87.
SHYE, S. (Ed.) Theory construction and data analysis in the behavioral sciences: a volume in
honor of Louis Guttman Part 1: From factors to facets). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
1978.
SMITH,S. S., & ~ L S T R O M ,J. F. When is a schema not a schema? The "big five" traits as
cognitive structures. Social Cognition, 1987, 5, 26-57.
ZUCKERMAN, M. The prychobiology of personali@. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press, 1991.

Accepted March 2.5, 1992.