Interpersonal and Personality Dimensions of Behavior: FIRO-B and the Big Five

In a study of convergence of measures of personality and interpersonal resources, a total of 192 students (64 men and 128 women) at an urban university completed the Big Five Inventory, a personality measure, and the FIRO-B, a measure of interpersonal resources. Results support a two-dimensional model of Interpersonal Control and Emotional Tone in relationships. Findings for the personality dimensions suggest that Extraversion is a pervasive aspect of relationships. Scores for Neuroticism were positively correlated with Control Wanted but negatively correlated with measures of Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. The analysis of FIRO subscales suggested that the theoretical three-dimensional model of Inclusion, Control and Affection might only be appropriate within relatively homogeneous groups. The distinction between Inclusion and Affection may be attenuated to irrelevance in less selective, or more diverse, populations. The analysis of individual differences in human behavior has two distinct, yet compatible, conceptual frameworks. Personality draws heavily from the medical model of behavior, in that the sources of a person's actions are presumed to reflect inherent variations in motivation within the individual. The vernacular concept of "mental illness" and the traditional allopathic model of psychiatry both view individuals themselves as sources of behavior. Analysis of a person's behavior is assumed to yield meaningful dimensions of individual differences, which constitute the "personality. " Some personal predisposition to pathology is assumed to appear as disruptive behavior in an individual's relationships. Presumably, the normal individual is one who is free of the potential dysfunctional aspects of behavior that would otherwise cause distress. This symptomatic model of the internal disturbance is the principle on which the diagnostic and statistical criteria of psychiatry are based. In its medical formulation, it appears as the DSM, and this model also pervades legal, ethical and cultural assumptions about deviance. By contrast, the scientific study of interpersonal relationships as entities independent of personality gained stature with small-groups research, classically reflected in the study of the dyadic relationship. The increasing focus on the situational determinants of behavior impelled the recognition of the dimensions of emergent interactions. Lewin's (1947) work on groups as models of democratic openness or authoritarian rigidity largely defined the nascence, and enhanced the evolution, of modern social psychology. The construct of personality to complex interactions was essentially negated as irrelevant (Mischel & Shoda, 1995), while recognition of the importance of the group dominated causal explanations of behavior. Sullivan (1953) redefined personality itself as an interpersonal phenomenon. He viewed "personality" as a relatively stable pattern of interpersonal behaviors arising from interactions with others, especially during critical developmental periods. Sullivan argued that interpersonal skills and the sense of identity developed from human interactions. He asserted that interpersonal skills arise from individuals' reactions to an innate drive to reduce anxiety. This global, undifferentiated drive becomes transformed through maturity and experience to become more focused as differentiated needs for security and satisfaction. Empathy is a central component of socialization, as a skill for evaluating others' needs and abilities. An individual who fails to master the distinctions among social identity, power, and love is at substantial risk for the development of pathological relationships. As fields of research, personality (with its intrapersonal emphasis), and interpersonal relations (emphasizing dimensions of interaction among individuals) are both maturing as alternative, yet complimentary, foci of individual differences. Personality, from the purely psychometric view of factor models, has tended to focus on a small number of predispositions, resulting in the increasingly prominent Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McRae, 1985; 1992; Wiggins, 1996). …