Interpersonal Needs

Welcome to the podcast on interpersonal needs. Our needs to be included, for control and affection help drive how and why we communicate. The interpersonal need theory by William Schutz and other needs theories have to do with whats going on inside us, so you may be wondering why were studying it, but what happens internally is externalized in behavior and communication. So well be looking at three needs: A need for inclusion, the extent to which we include ourselves with others; the need for control, the extent to which we control others actions or in some cases, desire them to guide us or control us; the need for affection, the extent to which we express affection to others and desire that from them. Prior to going into those three needs in detail, well want to talk about two aspects or components, the express and want components that operate within each of the three needs. What does express mean? Well, we express or behave in ways to fulfill our needs; thats the more active part of us. We have to behave; its overt, its not accidental, we have to get up and move around and express ourselves, the result of which to some degree is a fulfillment of our needs. Secondly, we want others to behave toward us, to help us fulfill our needs. Thats inactive, internal, covert. Its actually unavailable for observation, and so thats whats going on inside us. There are a couple of important points here. Important point one: everyone is different, which is kind of obvious, but the fact that we are all different means that what is right for one person may not be the case for another. So the way we communicate, of course, is different with every individual. So William Schutz developed three outcome measures. One of those is that sometimes people have few of their needs met, and so he uses the term deficient. When, over a long stretch of time, we fall short of fulfilling any one of the three needs, and thats the term (its kind of an unfortunate term) deficient. Sometimes people go overboard, they have an overabundance of their needs met, and so theyre excessive. And then, like most of us, or all of us, were ideal, were pretty much perfect, and so we tend to have most of our needs met. The second important point is that its important to take a longer view that its common that we would run short of getting what we need at times, and go over it other times. This all balances out within a short-term period of time, or over, say, a month, during which, most likely, this balances out, and this is one way to look at ideal. Lets look at our first need, inclusion. Inclusion has to do with the extent to which we include ourselves with others, and thats express inclusion, or wanting others to include us. Expressing inclusion is a matter of such examples as calling a friend on the phone, or youre on your computer and you instant message them. Youre actively doing something to reach out and contact others. Probably a better example that doesnt involve technology would be if you see a group of friends in the distance, and you walk up to them and as you get close to them, they probably open their little circle and allow you in there. So youve had to do something, youve had to express inclusion and not just sit back and waiting. Wanting inclusion is a lagging back, waiting, I guess, is a synonym for this; its hoping, waiting for someone to call you, to use the telephone example. Perhaps being out in public, say, out here outside the cafe on campus, if the weather is nice, maybe you sit outside; youre hoping that someone you know might come along, and then invite you along. An example: Youre in your dorm, if you live in a dorm situation, and you leave your door open, thats the most active you would be, and you would hope people going by might say things like hey, want to come join us for a pizza? So, remember those deficient, excessive, and ideal terms that Schutz uses. So he says that those people who, on a long-term basis are deficient and the inclusion need is undersocial. This would be someone who doesnt initiate conversation with others, is a loner, and is an introvert. Its a very extreme form

2 ofI dont know if you remember the Unibomber, Kaczynski. He lived in that shack as a miser, or rather a hermit, and would only come down for provisions and even then, only talk with people as little as possible. This doesnt involve us; this has to do with how social well be. The excessive part of that is someone who is uncomfortable being alone, and so has to be with people all the time. The term that Schutz uses is oversocial, and we are pretty much perfect, as Ive tried to point out; were social, thats the term Schutz uses. Remember this is over a period of time, and so weve all been in situations I usually ask in class, Is anybody a waiter or a waitress, or any other service occupations where you interact with people all the time. Then maybe youve had several days where youve had to wait tables, and you have people saying, you know, could we have our check, or how about some water over here? or my food wasnt cooked right. People are after you all the time, and you have quite a bit of interaction in a service-type job, and then you get home, and your roommate comes up to you saying oh, Im glad youre home, I cant wait to tell you this and then you just say back off because youve had enough of people. You need to just sit down on the couch, maybe get the remote control and flip through the T.V. channels, listen to your iPod, what have you; just be alone for a while. On the other side of the coin, maybe you can identify with the fact that perhaps youve spent almost all summer not really interacting much with people, hypothetically, youve helped your father with his business, and maybe youre in the back, like bookkeeping (I love making stuff up) and you really dont have a lot of interaction, and school (fall semester) is getting close and you kind of are looking forward to the fact that youre going to see old friends and meet new friends, so you need your social fix, you need to be included. So over time, this all balances out; thats a need for inclusion. Now, control. I love talking about this. Control is defined as the extent to which we control others actions and thats expressing control, or we want others to guide us or control us. That would be want control. Now of course, its very unusual (Im thinking) for someone to walk up to another and say will you control me? Its not like that. Expressing control: there you see some examples: that would be giving suggestions, deciding what to watch on TV, you like to drive a car, and so in expressing control, you like to have control. Youre probably a male. Nah, Im kidding, but there is this idea that surfaces from time to time that guys like to have the remote control, and that gives them some control (and drive the car, etc.). Thats obviously a stereotype. So! Wanting someone to control would be asking someone to help you decide, seeking advice, saying things like you decide, that sort of thing, and yielding control to another. So you have to understand that this wanting control isnt gimme gimme gimme! I want to control the world. You know, everybody wants to rule the world, like the song by Tears for Fears, I think it is. Its not that; this is what I call counter-intuitive: wanting control means I want you to decide for me, I want you to guide me. And indeed there are people who like to have strong, decisive people around them and, you know, to each his or her own. So if you want to have control, thats express control. Those labels, deficient, excessive and ideal; one who is deficient in the area of control Schutz calls an abdicrat, and that is someone who is submissive, the quiet person in the group, doesnt speak up quite a bit. Theres nothing wrong with this, whatever you think is fine with me. The abdicrat term, to help remember that, you might think about rulers in the past, like one of the czars in Russia abdicated his throne, and so thats one way to keep this in mind. This would be someone who would be a follower all the time, who would be uncomfortable leading a small group, like say, and they would lean toward wanting others to have that control. Excessive is just the opposite. Excessive is this gimme that remote

3 control, I gotta drive the car but to a very extreme [level], and thats the autocrat. Dictatorial, that sort of thing; has to be the leader in a group, that would be the dominant. So excessive would be the dominant; a better term would be domineering. They tend to be overbearing, tend to interrupt quite a bit (whats called talkovers) and that sort of thing. But most of us are ideal, as Ive tried to point out; we are good democrats, although this has nothing to do with political affiliation, but we are flexible in our responses, and that is one way to look at this ideal label. And so, lets take a small group in a class, and one class may be if you dont know much about whats being talked about (and there IS someone in the group that knows more about it), youre comfortable with leaning back and saying hey, let her do it, Ill follow her. In other situations, if you have expertise in whatevers being done in a small group in a class, then youre comfortable leading. So this doesnt have to be heavy-handed. Leading is making suggestions is expressing control. So its not like Im going to manipulate you and control you. That is part of expressing control, but thats a heavy-handed way. Making a suggestion is an expressed control example. So it varieswe may beas well talk about a little bit later, we may be high in expressing control: we take the lead in our personal relationship, but when were around our parents we may yield control to them. Or, you get a new job at a company, and youre probably not going to go in and start expressing control (Hey, lets do this, lets do that). You yield control to people more experienced, and so forth. Those are some of the nuances of these needs. Thats the control need. Now we move to affection, which should be no surprise that we would talk about that in interpersonal communication. Affection is the extent of which we express liking or loving, the way Schutz puts it, or want others to be close and personal toward us. Expressing affection: we can all think of examples of how you express affection by touching, smiling at another person, giving them attention, prolonged eye contact, which, I guess, could be better called staring, complimenting another, you know, what a nice lecture you made, and that kind of thing (hint hint). But that would be expressing affection. Now, wanting affection: theres nothing counter-intuitive about this. This is wanting another person to be affectionate toward me. So, hinting at a gift like chocolate, saving a place for a Mr. or Ms. Right, desiring that goodnight kiss, so you see its more difficult to talk about the want component for these needs because its either completely disguised inside the person that you want another to be affectionate toward you, or you hint. So hinting is sort of as behavioral as the want component gets. Its internal, and therefore unobservable. Now, the terms weve been dealing with, deficient in this area, is what Schutz calls the underpersonal, and that is someone who is distant, superficial, not very affectionate (even when affection comes their way), they shun that. Perhaps youve seen this, where someone attempts to kiss another, and then the other person turns away at the last moment, you know, turning their cheek. Someone tries to hug another person, and the other kind of steps back; this would be more of the underpersonal realm, and so this would be someone whos cold and impersonal. So, excessive would be overpersonal, theyve got to be close to everyone, got to touch everyone; you see a friend of yours coming towards you with someone you do not know, and your friend introduces him and that person hugs the stuffing out of you. Now, thats not a problem for some people, but I think in the majority culture, its probably inappropriate for someone youve never metfor them to give you a big hugbut there are cultural variations with all of these, and some cultures are more affectionate than others, and so appropriateness is a cultural phenomenon and this shows up in affection, I think, particularly. But the overpersonal has got to be close to everyone and cant have superficial

4 relationships. Now where ideal we are, as Schutz calls it, the personal, but I put in there on the slide appropriately personal. And so, I think its the case for most of us that we have maybe a girlfriend or boyfriend, or if youre a guy you have several (no Im kidding) but you have an intimate other, then you have a best friend, maybe more than one best friend. But then close friends: you have more of them. And friends: more friends than close friends. Then there are acquaintances, and way out would be the strangers. And this varies of course, with each individual. And so, thats what the ideal is: not everyone do we want to or allow to get affectionate and personal toward us. We see in the last slide, that theres an area thats called interpersonal attraction. The question becomes why are we attracted to some people rather than others, and so this is one-on-one, a personal relationship, but it also applies to groups, and of course we have groups as a central feature of this course (all of my courses, actually), to a greater or lesser extent. There are degrees of complimentarity and similarity. As you see there, complimentarity would otherwise be said opposites attract, or have you heard that? And so we are attracted to group and individuals by some degree of hey, that person is not like me, but I kind of admire the traits that they have that I dont have, and thats what attracts me toward them. So perhaps we could say that Im not very outgoing, and I might be attracted to another person because theyre very social, very outgoing. We could even talk about this in the inclusion need. Similarity: birds of a feather, flock together. Now, one of the things that attract us to other people is that they are similar to us, they may be similar ethnicity, age, outlook on life, political persuasion, kinds of music that you like, values (more deeper and more important), and so I think with most personal relationships, theres some degree of similarity there. But you see, often you will seeyou look at a couple and you say, What are they doing together? They look so different, have completely different attitudes, and that sort of thing. But many people like that; they dont want to hook up with or marry or date their clone; they like people who have different characteristics, and thats the complimentarity. So, lets look at this in terms of control. You can look at it as I already said in reference to all three of the needs. But in terms of control, there is a dominant/submissive relationship thats likely to result in an interpersonal attraction. That one person who is more on the dominant side, they like to lead, are high in express control. Its no mystery to me why they need to link up with someone who has a high need to be controlled, to be guided, to be around someone whos decisive. This is like a yin-yang type of complimentarity. That relationship is complimentary or asymmetrical. Asymmetrical means different in terms of control; I like to lead, and you like people who will lead, and so see how that fits. There are admired differenceswell, just continue on, though, since there are many things going on in every relationship, what could possibly related to control is you could both be dominant individuals, so dominant-dominant, so that would be called not an asymmetrical relationship, which is based on differences, but symmetrical, which means same or similarity (Birds of a feather flock together). The kind of conversation that could go on there is lets go out to eat, honey. Oh, ok, lets go eat Chinese food. No, you decided last time, lets go eat Mexican food. No, you decided last time, I remember distinctly. And so, an hour later, theyre not going anywhere, and arguing over where to eat, because theyre both dominant. Thats kind of a silly example, but underlying that conversation is a control struggle. You usually know it if you have a couple who lives nearby who are dominant-dominant, because sometimes they shout, their voices get raised, you know, that sort of thing. But then there is possibly a couple who could both be on the submissive side, and they both want control. Remember that

5 wanting control is I want you to lead. If you have two people like that, and theyre deciding where to eat, Lets go out to eat, you decide. Oh no, honey, I decided last time. Oh no, I remember I was the one who decided last time. And so an hour later, theyre both trying to give up the decision of where to eat out to each other. And theyre not shouting, but theyre not going anywhere, so, talking about a two person, dyadic, romantic personal relationship, It all varies; theres probably a blend of what attracts us to one another to some degree of opposites and complimentarity and some degree of similarity, but there are some couples who lean more one way or the other, as I tried to point out. This has been a podcast on Schutzs three interpersonal needs, and so the last thing to talk about iswell, I hinted about it earlier: Theres two ways to look at these needs and many concepts in interpersonal relations. You could look at this from a trait approach or a situational approach, and if we just continue on with control here for a moment, that a trait approach is this is the way I am; its my personality; I like to be in charge no matter who Im with, no matter what the situation is. Thats what trait means, and maybe we lean toward the dominant side across all situations. Thats what trait is: across situations. But another way to look at these needs and concepts is a situational view, in which that it depends that I may be dominant with my boyfriend/girlfriend, but more submissive with parents or the boss at work. It depends on the person or persons Im with, which of these needs are at work. Im different depending on the people Im with and the circumstances, thats a situational approach. Thats really a good way to look at all of these approaches in the social studies, the humanities, interpersonal relations, that kind of thing; you can look at things as stable across situations. A trait approach or a situational approach. So, as I said, this is a podcast on inclusion, control, and affection, Schutzs interpersonal needs, and I hope you enjoyed it.

2008 W. F. Owen