FIRO-B and the Five Temperament Theory

Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) is a theory of interpersonal relations, introduced by William Schutz in 1958. This theory mainly explains the interpersonal interactions of a local group of people. The theory is based on the belief that when people get together in a group, there are three main interpersonal needs they are looking to obtain – social skills ("Inclusion") leadership and responsibilities-taking skills ("Control") and openness in deeper relationships ("Affection"). Schutz developed a measuring instrument that contains six scales of nine-item questions, and this became version B (for "Behavior"). This technique was created to measure how group members feel when it comes to inclusion, control, and affection or to be able to get feedback from people in a group.

Description

These categories measure how much interaction a person wants in the areas of socializing (who's in or out of the relationship), leadership (who makes the decisions and takes responsibility), and more intimate personal relations (how open or closed the person is in a relationship). Each of the three areas is a two dimensional matrix, leading to a total of six factors. Scores in each area are graded from 0–9 in scales of expressed and wanted behavior, which define how much a person expresses to others, and how much he wants from others. Expressed behavior will generally determine how quick we are to approach others for interaction, while "wanted" behavior is about a "criteria" for accepting interaction.
Schutz believed that FIRO scores in themselves were not terminal, and can and do change, and did not encourage typology; however, the four temperaments were eventually mapped to the scales of the scoring system, which led to its use in sorting what's believed to be inborn behaviors.

Schutz himself discussed the impact of extreme behavior in the areas of inclusion, control, and openness as indicated by scores on the FIRO-B (and the later Element-B). For each area of interpersonal need the following three types of behavior would be evident: (1) deficient, (2) excessive, and (3) ideal. Deficient was defined as indicating that an individual was not trying to directly satisfy the need. Excessive was defined as indicating that an individual was constantly trying to satisfy the need. Ideal referred to satisfaction of the need. From this, he identified the following types:

Schutz composed a "Matrix of Relevant Interpersonal Data", which he called "The Elephant".<ref>Schutz (1958) p19</ref> 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). We thus end up with the six dimensions as follows:

Expressed Inclusion (eI): "I initiate interaction with others" (High: "oversocial"; low "undersocial")
Wanted Inclusion (wI): "I want to be Included" (High: "social-compliant"; low: "countersocial")
expressed Control (eC): "I try to control others" (High: "autocrat"; low: "abdicrat")
Wanted Control (wC): "I want to be controlled" (High: "submissive"; low: "rebellious")
Expressed Affection (eA): "I try to be close and personal" (High: "overpersonal"; low: "underpersonal")
Wanted Affection (wA): "I want others to be close and personal with me" (High: "personal-compliant"; low: "counterpersonal")

Putting them together, Schutz came up with fifteen "Descriptive Schema and appropriate terminology for each Interpersonal Need Area":<ref>Schutz (1958) p60</ref>

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

In 1977, a clinical psychologist who worked with FIRO-B, Dr. Leo Ryan, produced maps of the scores for each area, called "locator charts", and assigned names for all of the score ranges in his Clinical Interpretation of The FIRO-B:

Score	Inclusion	Control	Affection	Temperament by APS (all 3 areas)
Low e and w	The Loner	The Rebel	The Pessimist	Melancholy
moderate e, low w	"Now You See Him, Now You Don't" Tendencies	Self-Confident	"Image of Intimacy" Tendency	Phlegmatic Melancholy / Phlegmatic Choleric
High e, low w	Now You See Him, Now You Don't	Mission Impossible	Image/(Mask) of Intimacy	Choleric
high e, moderate w	The Conversationalist	"Mission Impossible" with Narcissistic Tendencies	Living Up To Expectations	Sanguine Phlegmatic / Choleric Phlegmatic
high e and w	People Gatherer (formerly, "Where are the People?")	Dependent-Independent conflict	The Optimist	Sanguine
moderate e, high w	Hidden Inhibitions	Let's Take a Break	Cautious Lover In Disguise	Phlegmatic Supine / Phlegmatic Sanguine
low e, high w	Inhibited Individual	Openly Dependent Person; (w=6: Loyal Lieutenant)	Cautious Lover	Supine
low e, moderate w	Cautious Expectation	The Checker	Careful Moderation	Supine Phlegmatic / Melancholy Phlegmatic
moderate e and w	Social Flexibility	The Matcher	Warm Individual/The Golden Mean	Phlegmatic

However, to continue not to encourage typology, the names (which were for clinical interpretation primarily) are generally not used, and FIRO-B test results usually total the E, W, I, C and A scores individually. In the derivative "five temperament" system, the different scores are grouped into their corresponding temperaments, and considered inborn types. One key difference is in the "high wanted" scores in the area of Control. A distinction is made between men and women, with men being "dependent", and women, rather than really being dependent, only being "tolerant" of control by others. This is attributed to "the stereotypical role of women in Western Culture", where they were often dependent, and have simply learned to tolerate control from others. This again, reflects FIRO's belief that these scores reflect learned behavior. In five temperament theory, no such distinction between the sexes is recognized, and high wanted scores in Control are seen as an inborn dependency need in both sexes.

Compatibility Theory

Another part of the theory is "compatibility theory", which features the roles of originator, reciprocal, and interchange.<ref>Hammer, Schnell (2000) p.6</ref>

Originator compatibility, involves possible clashes between expressed and wanted behaviors. The example given, is two people with high eC and low wC (aka "Mission Impossible" or "Autocrat Rebellious"). They: "will both want to originate the behaviors associated with the Control needs, and neither will want to receive those behaviors. Both persons will want to set the agenda, take responsibility, and direct and structure the actions of others; neither will feel comfortable taking direction. The result could be competition or even conflict."

Reciprocal compatibility is (from another example given from Control), where high eC with low wC interacts with the opposite: low eC with high wC ("Openly Dependent", "Loyal Lieutenant", or "Abdicrat Submissive").

"there is a high degree of reciprocal compatibility because...one will take charge; the other will be happy to let him or her assume the responsibility."

Interchange compatibility measures how much individuals share the same need strengths. The example is two people with both high eA and wA ("Optimist" or "Overpersonal Personal-compliant"). They "will be compatible because both will see Affection behaviors as the basis of the relationship, and they will engage each other around Affection needs." (i.e. freely give and receive).

Further development

During the 1970s, Schutz revised and expanded FIRO theory and developed additional instruments (Schutz 1994, 1992) for measuring the new aspects of the theory, including Element B: Behavior (an improved version of FIRO-B); Element F: Feelings; Element S: Self; Element W: Work Relations; Element C: Close Relations; Element P: Parental Relationships; and Element O: Organizational Climate. Since 1984, these instruments have been known collectively as Elements of Awareness.

Element B 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.<ref>http://www.hpsys.com/PDFs/EB%20Matrix%20Sample.pdf http://www.mikebeitler.com/freestuff/articles/Element-B.pdf</ref>

The original FIRO-B was sold to CPP, Inc., which also publishes the MBTI assessment, and FIRO Element B is owned by Business Consultants Network, Inc.

A third FIRO system, called FIRO-Space™ is being developed by Dr. Henry L. Thomspon who developed the second one.<ref>http://www.hpsys.com/firo.htm</ref>

Correlations with MBTI

In a 1976 survey of seventy-five of the most widely used training instruments, the FIRO-B was found to be the most generally usable instrument in training. The popularity of the FIRO-B began to wane as the MBTI became one of the instruments of choice in business. Since FIRO-B uses completely different scales from MBTI, and was not designed to measure inborn "types," it is often used together with the MBTI by workplaces. Now the two are offered together by CPP.<ref>http://www.cpp.com/images/reports/smp210256.pdf</ref>

Statistical correlation has been observed between FIRO-B and MBTI by John W. Olmstead, and also Allen L. Hammer with Eugene R. Schnell.

FIRO-B Scale	E-I	S-N	T-F	J-P
Expressed Inclusion	−59***	04	11*	00
Wanted Inclusion	−28***	11*	12*	12*
Expressed Control	−23***	03	−23***	−01
Wanted Control	04	−09	16***	−05
Expressed Affection	−52***	06	22***	07
Wanted Affection	−31***	02	17***	07

FIRO-B and MBTI Correlations
* p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001
Negative correlations associated with E, S, T and J.
Positive correlations associated with I, N, F and P.

Five Temperament Theory

In the 1980's, it was determined that the FIRO-B matrix could be used to measure inborn temperament. Drs. Richard and Phyllis Arno did extensive research, and licensed the FIRO-B questionnaire and scoring system in their Christian Counseling organization, rebranding it first as the "Temperament Analysis Profile" (TAP), and finally, the "Arno Profile System" (APS). Expressed Inclusion (eI) was generally matched with the familiar "introversion/extroversion" of classic temperament, and "wanted Inclusion" (wI) with the classic "people versus task (or "relationship") orientation" that was the other factor of classic temperament. Therefore three of the four ancient temperaments fit right in place onto the system, with Sanguine (originally "hot and moist", as the element "air") as high e and w, Melancholy (originally "cold and dry", as "earth") as low e and w, and Choleric (originally "hot and dry", as "fire"), was high e/low w.

From four to five: moderate scales

Phlegmatic, while traditionally considered "introverted" and "people-focused" (or "cold and moist", as "water"), ended up as moderate in both scales (scores are generally 4 and 5, corresponding to Schutz's "Social", "Democrat" and "Personal", and Ryan's "Social Flexibility", "Matcher" and "Warm Individual" in the three areas). They are not really as introverted as a Melancholy, nor as people-focused as a Sanguine. Their overall attitude towards people is described as "take 'em or leave 'em". They seem both "reserved" and "agreeable" (compared to those other temperaments) because they have a low energy reserve that leads them to try to take the "path of least resistance" in interactions, in order to keep the peace. Sometimes, on the other hand, it also leads to a notable "stubbornness", which also conveys a refusal to "move", when pushed. All of these traits are what earned the temperament its association with slow-moving "phlegm". At one point, it was even deemed to be the very absence of temperament, which is basically true, as temperament is driven by emotional energies, and this one practically isn't.

This left a whole corner of the matrix, representing scores of low expressed and high wanted (Schutz's "Undersocial Social-compliant", "Abdicrat Submissive" and "Underpersonal Personal-compliant"; and Ryan's "Inhibited Individual", "Openly Dependent Person" and "Cautious Lover") unfilled by a temperament. This was determined to be a previously unknown fifth temperament; unknown because the resulting behaviors end up being confused as a Melancholy or Phlegmatic on the surface, yet differing by having a high need of interaction; equal to that of the highly extroverted Sanguine, but which is not expressed and thus not even made known to most people. However, there were reports of some people not fitting into the other four. (Note, the corresponding latter FIRO terms do not really fit the classic Phlegmatic, but rather may be seen as an exaggerated extension of their overall dispostion, in contrast to the other three. The former ["moderate"] FIRO terms are what do fit the Phlegmatic).
The Arno's named it "Supine", meaning "lying on the back" or "with the face turned upward". (Like a dog looking up to or rolling over for his master, or a servant slightly bowed before his master. So instead of body fluids, it's named after a body position).

Individuals of this temperament like people and want to be accepted, but lack the mechanism (boldness) to express this need by approaching others, like the Sanguine does. Thus, they are described as using tasks, like service to others, to try to win this acceptance.
A need to have people "read their minds" and know that they want interaction is a trait that is stressed in the APS definitions. This is from the low expression. Supines also tend to think of themselves as worthless, while others are worthy. Since they depend on acceptance by others, they have problems with guilt.

In the three areas, the temperament behavior can be described in terms of the following attitudes:

	INCLUSION: Who is IN or OUT of the relationship	CONTROL: Who maintains the POWER and makes the DECISIONS for the relationship	AFFECTION: How emotionally CLOSE or FAR the relationship
Melancholy	Everyone OUT, except for "Exclusive Club"	"I don't control you, so please don't try to control me"	generally, emotionally FAR
Sanguine	Everybody "IN" ("Come on in!")	Controls or being controlled according to "SWING"	Emotionally CLOSE
Choleric	Don't call me; I'll call you; until then, OUT! (except for "Exclusive Club")	"I'M the Boss!"	emotionally FAR, unless I approach you for my purposes
Supine	Everybody IN; but you must reach out and invite me!	"YOU'RE the Boss!"	emotionally CLOSE, but you must reach out to me
Phlegmatic	"Take 'em or leave 'em"	Democratic; "Let's all be Boss!"	moderate; take it or leave it

Temperament Blending

Having the same temperaments on three separate matrices allows a person to be one temperament in one area, and different or the same temperament in the other areas. (Those who are the same in all areas are considered the original "pure" version of the temperament). Other classic temperament systems, most notably that of Tim LaHaye and Florence Littauer, allowed blends of temperaments. These are usually based on an order of relative "strength", where the two strongest are assumed to be the blend, and sometimes even a third, if strong enough. The APS, using the three-level FIRO system, gives more of a structure to temperament blends, with the first one being the one on the "surface" of interactions, hence "Inclusion", and then Control and Affection following. This shows a person in which area of interaction they may have the different temperament needs. It also explains some anomalies, and prevents us from being placed in four rigid "boxes", as some have complained. Like an introvert (who has low expressed Inclusion) has a high expressed Control (i.e. a Sanguine or Choleric in that area), then he will be normally reserved and slow to approach others in social interactions, but be able to quickly approach others in certain instances involving taking responsibility or action.

Eric B's correlation with typology

I (forum member Eric B), learning of both five temperament theory, and then type, saw a possible connection, in both systems using I/E and that the 16 types appeared to also be either people or task focused like in classic temperament, and that this seemed to involve the T/F and J/P scales. Type theorists David Keirsey and Linda Berens had already mapped temperament to type, first through Keirsey's popular two-letter groupings (SP, SJ, NT, NF) and then Berens developing a second kind of temperament matrix, the Interaction Styles™, which did in fact use I/E, and also T/F and J/P, which figured (in a roundabout fashion) to a polarity she called "Informing" and "Directing", and acknowledged as corresponding to "people vs task" or "responsiveness".
In 2007, I had determined in an admittedly loose, informal conceptual correlation, that Interaction Styles corresponded to Inclusion (the "social" area), and Keirsey's temperaments corresponded to "Control" (Berens, in adopting his groups, dubbed them the "conative" lens of type, meaning "dealing with action", which would roughly match the "leadership and responsibilities" definition of "Control").

The four Interaction Styles are:
ESF/ENP: "Coworker" (Berens: Get Things Going™, extraverted, informing): Sanguine
EST/ENJ: "Initiator" (Berens: In Charge™; extraverted, directing): Choleric
IST/INJ: "Contender" (Berens: Chart the Course™; introverted, directing): Melancholic
ISF/INP: "Responder" (Berens: Behind the Scenes™, introverted, informing): Phlegmatic

Notice, they are evenly divided between S and N types (and thus "blind" to that factor, yet nevertheless affected by it), with T/F indicating directing/informing on the S side, and J/P indicating it on the N side. (Both T and J will tend to be less "responsive" while F and P will tend to be more responsive).

On the conative side, Keirsey's factors of "Cooperative" vs "Pragmatic" would represent low and high "expressed Control", respectively. Another factor outlined by Berens, focus on "structure" vs "motive", would be low and high "wanted Control", respectively. (These also convey a sort of "task" vs "people" focus, as can be seen in the corresponding Keirseyan temperaments they are associated with).

The resulting factoring leads to:
SP "Artisan" (Pragmatic, Motive): Sanguine
SJ "Guardian" (Cooperative, Structure): Melancholic
NT "Rational" (Pragmatic, Structure): Choleric
NF "Idealist" (Cooperative, Motive): Supine

The first two were matched by Keirsey in the same way. The latter two, however, Keirsey essentially reversed, with NF as the "Choleric" and NT as the "Phlegmatic". This he based, in passing, on defining Choleric as "emotional" and Phlegmatic as "calm and cool". But for one thing, the conative area is not looking at surface interactive behaviors such as expressing emotion, but rather action-taking skills. The NT is the one who is quicker to take action, due to his "pragmatic" focus ("do what works"), and uses an abstract "structure" (such as plans or logic) as the criteria for controlling his behavior. The NF is the opposite; slower to take action, based on "what's right" (hence, "cooperative"), and allowing himself to be guided ("controlled") by the motives of others (such as "why they do the things they do"). Keirsey himself had labeled the Idealist's "skills set" as "Diplomatic", which is what the classic Phlegmatic had always been described as. There is other evidence, even in Keirsey's own books and some other sources, of NT fitting behaviors associated with the classic "Choleric" (especially when stressed), and NF fitting Supine or Phlegmatic.

As the classic temperaments were derived from Hippocrates and Galen (and often used more in their "social" forms such as Interaction Styles covers), and Keirsey derived his temperaments ultimately from Plato's "Four Kinds of Men", and basically indicate or at least tie into "trades" ("Guardian", "Artisan", etc), or essentially "leadership" styles, then we can say type is a combination of a "Hippocratic temperament" and a "Platonic temperament" (as an alternative to using FIRO's "Inclusion and Control" or the generic "affective and conative").

Also, while the Phlegmatic does fit "calm and cool", notice that Supine is what better fits the "low expressed, high wanted" position. They are definitely more "cooperative" and "motive-focused" than the Phlegmatic. (iNtuition with Feeling conceptualizes human need, and thus produces the need to follow "abstract motives" and not want to be responsible for something that might hurt others). The Supine does have more of an "emotional" energy that will better fit NF stereotypes, while the Phlegmatic, once again, is driven by the need to conserve a low energy reserve, which produces similar overall behaviors, but with much less energy.
This means there may be variations on NF types, with some being more emotional and even dependent, while others may be calmer and independent. The same variations may also be present in ISF/INP [Interaction Style] types. Supine INTP's may seem like Feelers (such as INFP or even ENFP), while Phlegmatic INFP's may seem like INTP's.

The role of T/F and J/P are now reverse of what they were in the Interaction Styles. For S's, P is apart of the more responsive ("motive"-focused) temperament and J apart of the less responsive (structure-focused) one. For N's, F is apart of the motive focused temperament, and T is the structure focused one. We again see that across the board, F and P are more responsive, and T and J are less so. This leads to FP's (informing + motive) being overall the most responsive types, TJ's (directing + structure) being the less responsive or most "directive", and TP and FJ (which mix those up) being inbetween. The latter types, especialy on the N side, end up being very "enigmatic" and easily confusing over the T/F scale, as NTP's are the only informative T's, making them seem softer than other T's and resembling F's, and NFJ's are the only directive F's, making them resemble T's.

By extension, for the S-preferring temperaments (S/N actually ends up tying together opposites on the e/w matrix), SP (to define the temperament by corresponding Jungian function, as Berens did), indicates an extraverted Sensing preference. This function, which tends to "go with the flow" in following or exploiting current sensory data in the environment, leads the type to be both "pragmatic" and "motive focused" (both will stem from reacting to the current data). Hence, it will also loosely fit a high expressed and high wanted Control in FIRO-B's and APS's system, described in terms of an "Independent-Dependent Conflict" and named by APS "Sanguine in Control". This "conflict" is from, again, the reliance on emergent sensory data. (Evidences of this "swing" are present in some of Keirsey's SP type profiles, where there is described a "cooling off" period after quickly taking action).
SJ is determined by introverted Sensing, in which sensory data is stored in memory for later referencing of "fact". This will lead to them being "cooperative" (need to determine if the action is "right" or not), and structure focused in a more "concrete" way (depends on "authorized" tangible authority, such as workplace management or family unit, that's easily remembered). This will correspond with the Melancholy in Control's fear of the unknown, and need to look competent in known or trusted areas.

The third area, Affection, ends up "left out" of the correlation, and thus perhaps an additional variation of type. It's overall similar to Inclusion; just on a "deeper level", and as such, may fit in with Interaction Style, especially for temperament blends like mine, where I'm the same temperament in Inclusion and Affection. For those with different temperaments in those areas, it will explain some anomalies, such as an introvert who is more expressive in his deeper relationships. Ryan had named some of these combinations, such as this one as being an "Affectionate Homebody", and the opposite as being a "Table Hopper" or "Have Your Cake and Eat it Too" (because as extroverts, they approach or express to others on the surface, but are not very expressive in deeper relationships).
I would also allow that Affection may be the Interaction Style for some people, rather than Inclusion. This would make the correlation even more flexible, and explain a person who appears to have a different Interaction Style from the type they profess. On the "surface" they might be extraverted or directive, but the type they profess is introverted or informing, and it would be in deeper relations, that the behavior matches more.

Moderate scales also lead to the possibility of being moderate in one dimension, and low or high in the other. This created basically nine different behavior groups in Ryan's locator chart (a tenth subdivision of one appears in Control), and in APS, the moderates are considered "Phlegmatic blends", and split between leaning toward one or the other adjacent temperament.

So you can "express as a Phlegmatic and respond as..." one of the other temperaments. This will be indicated by a high or low Wanted score (representing the other temperament), and the expressed score will be either 4 (and what you "respond" as being the lower "expressed" temperament, i.e. Melancholy or Supine), or 5 (which will respond as the higher expressed temperament. Sanguine or Choleric). These types will be technical "ambiverts", and in the translation to type (where they must be either I or E, even if the preference is slight), they may seem to go either way between I and E.
You can also express as one of the other four temperaments (and thus have a low or high expressed score), and respond as a Phlegmatic (which will have a score of 4 or 5, depending on the other temperament). The person will have more of a "take 'em or leave 'em" attitude in responding to others, and respond more equally between people and tasks.

There are also "Compulsive" variations of the four corner temperaments. These are the most extreme expressed and wanted scores (like 0/0, 0/9, 9/0 and 9/9, and surrounding score boxes), and represent a compulsive need to act out the temperament dispositions.
So in each area, there are five main temperaments, eight "Phlegmatic" blends, and four "Compulsive" variations. This yields 17 different temperament groups for each area. Multiply these together (17×17×17), there are 4913 different combinations (or, if you don't count the compulsives, which are technically the purest form of the temperaments, it's 13×13×13, or 2197).

I began running the idea by people on this and other forums, in threads like this http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/online-personality-tests/27264-temperament-inclusion-control-affection.html (where I was greatly aided by some APS temperament reports for each of the 17 temperament groups in each of the three areas put up on one ministry's site, where people could pick out the temperaments they identify with directly, in each of the three areas. Since it's a lot to read 51 profiles, I tell people to start with the five pure temperaments in each area, and only read others if those don't quite fit).

The results generally do match pretty well, though not perfectly consistently, of course. INTJ's will often come out as Melancholy-Choleric as I predicted (INJ+NT), while INFJ's are usually Melancholy-Supine or Melancholy-Phlegmatic (INJ+NF). INTP's often don't come out as Phlegmatic-Choleric or Supine-Choleric (INP+NT) as I expected (and which do match for me), but this is not the formal way of taking the APS (using the licensed FIRO-B questionnaire, and employing a specific administration technique in order to gain inborn temperament and not simply changeable behavior, which is what I had done for me), and so won't be as accurate.
The problem likely results from the fact that the individual reports for each area assumes a portion of the whole "pure" temperament, and does not show how the temperament-driven behavior in one area affects the other (like the example given above, of the introvert with high expressed Control who is more aggressive or proactive in leadership situations). So for the INTP, their introversion mixes with the critical "T" of the Rational, producing an overall "Melancholy" appearance, and they often thus get high Melancholy and Phlegmatic. (INTP is the only IT type that is "Behind the Scenes" and not "Chart the Course"). I can identify with this, as I was assumed to be Melancholy, when we first learned about temperament. I also seem very "Phlegmatic" at times. And on LaHaye's test, I did come out as Phleg-Mel. But sorted out the right way, Supine-Choleric-Supine makes perfect sense.

Even the formal FIRO-MBTI correlation supported this to some extent. Like eI having high correlation with E-I.

The purpose of correlating the two systems is that it gives an additional perspective in type behavior, and shows the blends of temperaments in each. This can help personality theory overall, in showing that each model is really looking at the same things, through different "lenses".
For instance, I have seen ISxP's question their SP preference (particularly for the temperament seeming too "extroverted" or active). SP is a kind of Sanguine, which is a very active extrovert, which often influences the general temperament descriptions (especially in Keirsey's profiles which focus on the temperaments more than the types). Yet this might not match the way the ISP sees himself. However, this correlation shows that the ISP's "Sanguine" behavior lies in the area of Control, not Inclusion (social interaction). When seen as covering his leadership or action skills, the ISP can more easily identify with the active, "pragmatic" SP descriptions.

The FIRO-B matrix is also a very simple system to understand, and using it with the temperaments will give an easy sense of one's personality, and correlating it with type will also give access to the Cognitive Dynamics of that system, for more depth.

References

<references />

External links

• FIRO Questionnaire
• Book on five temperament theory by NCCA licensed counselor
• Free Temperament Reports
• Eric B's full correlation

See Also

Temperament theory in Type