User:Izzypaulssen/sandbox

The Relationship Awareness Theory is the theory that one's behavioural traits should be consistent with ideas and beliefs about interpersonal relationships that are intended to satisfy oneself. The goal is for these to achieve this satisfaction. Elias H. Porter is the main author of this theory and his concept of it clarifies that this is to help others by understanding oneself and other people to make interpersonal relationships satisfying and beneficial as well as to reorganise the concepts of oneself and others around three basic motivations. The first motivation is wanting to be a legitimate help to others, then to be a kind of leader to others and the last concept is to crave self-dependence. The theory of relational awareness is based on four premises which include: behaviour is driven by motivation, motivation changes when there is conflict, personal weaknesses are exaggerated strength, and clarity and face validity promote self-discovery.

Development

The Relationship Awareness Theory is based on the assumption that behavior traits are related to what is perceived as satisfactory in interpersonal relations. Furthermore it is related to the concepts people have on how to behave around others to reach said satisfaction. The theory was developed for people to understand others and their self’s to make interpersonal relations more productive and satisfying for both parties. Additionally it was developed to help organizing self-concepts and concepts of others around three basic motivations: wanting to help others, wanting to lead others and wanting to be self-dependent.

Aim

The theory aims to provide the possibility for people to see their freedom in choosing behavioral acts that are in harmony with their own values and principles while also keeping in mind the values and principles of other people around them. The theory tries to help create effective communication strategies and focusses on strengthening interpersonal relationships in various environments. Furthermore, it offers the individual the opportunity to understand their own behavioral acts as well as improve their skills in interacting with others to form strong relationship.

Motivation

In order to distribute and understand both their own values and the one of others, the theory bases itself on three major motivational goals:

1. Wanting to be a genuine help of others
2. Wanting to be the leader
3. Wanting to be self-dependent

In this way, the theory strives towards interpersonal interactions that have been made gratifying in both aspects of oneself and others to enable mutual cooperation and working together. Furthermore, it tries to minimize any damages or negative consequences of individual integrity if this mutual cooperation and working together in a productive manner could not be guaranteed.

Premises of the theory

The theory is based on four premises which state that behaviour is driven by motivation, motivation changes when there is conflict, personal weaknesses are exaggerated strength, and clarity and face validity promote self-discovery.

• First premise: "Behavior traits arise from purposive strivings for gratification mediated by concepts or hypotheses as to how to obtain those gratifications." The first premise proposed by the Relationship Awareness Theory is based on Edward C. Tolman's theory on purposive behaviorism. Behavior traits are the consistencies which stem from the consistencies in what we find gratifying in interpersonal relationships. Additionally, the consistencies are about our beliefs or concepts which show us how to interact with people in order to achieve those gratifications. Over time we become increasingly aware what we are seeking from others. We think about our beliefs and concepts and also change them in a way, that best serves our need for what we think satisfies our gratification in interpersonal relationships. As we become increasingly aware of our own gratifications, we become aware of what others seek from us in order to satisfy their needs. Thus, their behavior becomes more understandable for us. This way opens new ways of finding mutual gratification and makes it easier to avoid conflict in interpersonal relationships. This theory avoids the unspoken assumption that if one knows the other person’s “primary personality factor”, that one can predict their behavior in most, if not all situations. This assumption is thought to be faulty and misleading in Relationship Awareness Theory.

• Second premise: There are two clear distinguishably different conditions in the stimulus world that affect patterns of behavior. One condition is met when we are free to pursue the gratifications we seek from others. The second condition is met when we are faced with opposition and conflict when seeking our gratification, our priority is to preserve our own integrity and self-esteem. The behavior traits that are apparent in the two conditions greatly differ. When we freely pursue our gratifications, we are more or less uniformly predictable. When met with conflict and opposition, however, motivations change, which is expressed in behavior we would not pursue under free conditions. “We are predicably uniform in our behavior when we are free, and we are predictably variable as we meet with obstructing conditions in our stimulus world".

• The third premise is from Fromm and states that “a personal weakness is no more, nor less, than the overdoing of a personal strength." According to this, a person operates from their personal strength when they behave in a manner that enhances the probability that an interpersonal interaction will be a mutually productive interaction. Consequently, a person acts from a personal weakness when they behave in a way that decreases the probability of a mutually productive interaction. Acting in a trusting manner would therefore be a strength, whereas acting in an overly trusting or gullible manner would be considered operating from a weakness. Similarly, being cautious would be a strength, but being overly cautious or suspicious would be a weakness. In Porter’s view, no matter if a person acts from a weakness or strength, psychotherapists or facilitators would be able to assess the gratifications the person is striving for and help this individual in assessing the effectiveness of their beliefs and concepts about how to interact with others in order to obtain this desired gratification.

• The fourth premise relates to two distinctions that can be drawn among personality theories in general. The first distinction is about how in some theories the concepts are remote and distant from how one really experiences it, whereas in other theories the concepts entailed relate to how one really experiences one-self. The second distinction between theories is that some theories simply label concepts, but in others, the concepts can lead to self-discovery. In summary, the last and fourth premise is that the more clearly the concepts in a personality theory approximate how one experiences one’s self, the more effectively they serve as devices for self-discovery. This means that the more a personality theory is really for a person rather than about a person, the better it will be for that person.

Proximate - experience concepts

Additional to the four premises the theory is built upon, there is one set of concepts based on each premise.

• The first set of experience-proximate concepts of the theory relates to the first premise. Behavioral traits are purposive strivings for gratification. According to the theory, there are three different types basic strivings in relating to others. The first is to be nurturant of another, so being genuinely helpful to another person and see the other person do well. Everyone sees themselves as wanting to be helpful in a relationship. The second striving is to be in a directorial role. We all experience wanting to be the leader and the person in charge in a relationship at some points. The third striving, is the striving for autonomy, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. The theory states that everyone has the desire to do things for themselves without help or direction from others. For some individuals, one of these motivations might be predominant.
• The second set of concepts relates to the second premise of the theory, which states that there are two different conditions when pursuing our gratification and which affect the patterns of our behavior. When an individual is free to pursue their gratification, the nurturant motivation takes the form of actively seeking to be helpful to others. The second motivation of wanting to be in a directorial role expresses itself as being self-assertive and seeking of opportunity to provide leadership. The motivation of being autonomous is taking the form of actively seeking logical orderliness and self-reliance. In the face of conflict and opposition, the motivation considering the nurturing of others is expressed in efforts to preserve and restore harmony, whereas the directive motivation is expressed by efforts to prevail over the other person in conflict. The third motivation which is about autonomy is expressed in efforts to stay resourceful and assure independence.
• This set is based on the third premise and thus about both the actual overdoing and perceived overdoing of strengths. The actual overdoing of a trait, as described earlier, is when a person is, for example, cautious to the point of being suspicious. In contrast, perceived overdoing occurs mainly when two people interact who have different motivations. An example of such an occurrence would be when a person with a high nurturing motivation would interact with a person who has a high directing motivation. In such a scenario, the latter could, for example, act with self-confidence, ambition and directness. The nurturant person may perceive this behavior as arrogant, aggressive or overbearing. In summary, perceived overdoing seems to be about over-reacting to behavior of others that would be considered inappropriate for one-self.
• Just like the previous sets of concepts, the last set of concepts is similarly based on the last premise. This set of concepts is about achieving an understanding of one’s own gratification as well as those of others. By being able to understand the similarities, or differences, in gratifications, the person can then assess whether a conflict is unwarranted or real. If it is unwarranted, the person may want to work out strategies to achieve a win-win solution. In contrast, if the conflict is real, the person may seek to limit the relationship to the other person or even terminate the relationship altogether.

Strength Deployment Inventory

The Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI) was first published by Elias H. Porter in 1971. It is a psychometric test based on the Relationship Awareness Theory. The SDI is supposed to help with the improvement of relationships and conflict management and is therefore often used for team building training. The test is a self-report questionnaire with its focus on what makes people feel good and how they behave in conflicts. The results of the questionnaire are used to create a colour chart in the form of a triangle. The corners of the triangle are coloured differently and represent different motivational values. The three primary motivational values the SDI measures are altruistic-nurturing, assertive-directing and analytic-autonomizing. Altruistic -Nurturing: Altruistic nurturing describes the concern for the protection, growth and welfare of others Assertive-Directing: Assertive-Directing describes the concern for accomplishing a task and the organization of the resources needed for that Analytic-Autonomizing: Analytic-Autonomizing describes the concern for things being well thought through.

Reliability

To check the reliability of the SDI questionnaire one hundred subjects were retested within six days to two weeks. The Pearsonian coefficients of correlation of the three primary motivational values between the test and retest scores were for each scale as follows: Altruistic-nurtururing, r=.78; Assertive-directing, r=.78; and Analytic-autonomizing, r=.76. When done properly the scores show a high consistency no matter how long the intervening length of time between test and retest is. A change of under 6 points or 1/2 standard deviations can be interpreted as statistically not significant.

Causes of change in SDI score

• Improper instructions by the instructor can cause the participant to alter his answers, which hides their true SDI.
• If a person answers the first SDI untruthful, the scores will not reflect their true SDI, making the score unreliable.
• Alteration of the SDI score can also be caused by an environmental demand.
• Trauma or personality change can cause the score to change.

Validity

It is necessary to judge the Strength Deployment Inventory and the Personal Values Inventory as educational instruments. The Personal Values Inventory is an educational intervention method for improving one's personal values. Although a manipulation of answers by the individuals is theoretically possible, Porter did not conclude that the honest answers of an individuals have no validity.

As the persons executing the interventions discussed individual items with their clients, the level of confidence associated to each of them is becoming from interest. Therefore, the Chi-square method was used, which differentiates between high and low scores.

The measurement of the scale used shows high levels of internal consistency. To investigate if the scales used in the experiment measure the behaviors of interest, places where the phenomena naturally occur can be observed. It could be found that overall the scores were congruent, with some exceptions. An exception was found when the inventory to a group of cadets in a police academy and a group of police sergeants with 3 to 5 years of policeexperience, which were found to be in the Hub and not in the expected Assertive-Directing scale. The "Hub" refers to a set boundary value, which is set at 11 points above the mean on both sides. The Assertive-Directing scale measures the ability to accomplish tasks and work towards a desired goal by organizing people and resources.

Another validity that was found included cases where certain jobs required individuals to behave in incongruent ways with their inventory scores. Besides that, there were reports from some individuals who changed to jobs which are more congruent with their Inventory scores leading to increased satisfaction with their work.

Effectiveness of validity as an educational instrument

When examining the effectiveness of validity as an educational instrument participants experiences include a sense of exhilaration and personal gain, understanding themselves and others better, liking and respecting themselves and others more, feeling freer to be themselves and try new ways of relating to others, feeling less locked-in to behaving according to how “They” say one should behave, and an increased ability to be open and honest with others, to give and receive feedback from others.

Reception

The Strength Deployment Inventory, which is based on the Relationship-Awareness theory is employed by managers since it is a helpful tool in finding the right „place“ in their organisations for their employees. This means a job, where they will be most productive and also will be highly satisfied with their work. The indicated is useful to the managers of companies because increased job satisfaction and productivity of their employees lead to low employee turnover. This in turn leads to greater achievements in economies of experience and also reduces the cost of training new employees and Human Resources issues that are caused by a conflicted setting.