See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336170377

Facet Theory

Article · October 2019

CITATIONS READS
2 801

1 author:

Samuel Shye
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
71 PUBLICATIONS   1,604 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Decison under risk- dual system cognitive modelling View project

Quality of life structure and measurement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samuel Shye on 25 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Shye, S. (1999). Facet theory. In S. Kotz (Ed.) Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, update Vol.
3, pp. 231–239. New York: Wiley.

Preprint: January, 1997

Facet Theory

Facet Theory (FT) is a general approach to empirical sciences that advocates the integration of

formal analysis of research contents with multivariate statistical data analysis, for the purpose of

formulating and testing laws in those sciences. FT was initially proposed by Louis Guttman as a

generalization of R.A. Fisher's design of experiments to the design of theories. FT offers an

alternative to what it regards as one-sided research practices--those focusing on elaborate

conceptualization with no clearly testable hypotheses, on the one hand; and those involving

statistical assumptions or intricacies not warranted by the nature of the observations, on the other

hand [22,23,49]. FT is especially geared to research problems with a large number of interacting

variables, hence it has been found useful mostly in the social, psychological and life sciences.

More generally, FT is concerned with systems that are sufficiently complex to be considered

"behavioral". For the study of such systems, FT offers techniques of formal research design

(mapping sentences), structural hypothesis testing (Faceted Smallest Space Analysis--FSSA),

and measurement (Multiple Scaling by Partial Order Scalogram Analysis by base Coordinates--

POSAC). This article reviews the development, principles and techniques of FT and illustrates

them with simple examples.

1. Content FT: Concepts as Spaces. The empirical observation of N subjects with respect to

their responses to each of n questions results in an Nxn data matrix wherein element aij records

subject i's response to the j-th question. The system of observations is a mapping PxQ → R from
 2

the cartesian product of population P of subjects and the set Q of questions, into the set R of

possible responses. Guttman [19] has proposed the following

Definition: a facet is a set that is a component of a cartesian product.

E.g., in the above, P is the population facet and Q is the question facet.

Example 1: Suppose members of a population P are presented with the following question:

q1: What personal contribution would you be willing to make in order to help preserve the

forests? (possible responses: 1.pay, 2.do organizational work, 3.plant trees, 4.none of the

above).

If more than one choice out of the first three is to be permitted, q1 may be broken down into

three separate questions:

In order to help preserve the forests would you be willing:

q1.1: to pay? {yes, no}.

q1.2: to do organizational work? {yes, no}.

q1.3: to plant trees? {yes, no}.

Given the overall structure of the questions, the mapping is, in effect, PxQ1 → R where Q1 is the

set {pay, do organizational work, plant trees} which differentiates among the three questions.

Additional environmental concerns such as the preservation of whales, or of water quality, may

be included to expand the observational design. The new mapping would be:

PxQ1xQ2 → R, where Q2={forests, whales, water quality}. (Following the inclusion of Q2, Q1

is modified by replacing its 3rd element, 'plant trees', by the more general 'act directly'.) Each of

the facets Q1 and Q2 classifies the expanded set of nine questions by a content criterion; hence

Q1 and Q2 are called content facets. The mapping sentence [20, 34, 49] for the observational

design would be:

 3

A Mapping Sentence for Observing Attitudes towards

Personal Contribution to Environmental Quality

Q1: Contribution

pay 
 
Is citizen pi(piP) willing to do _ org ' l _ work  in order to
act − directly 
 

Q2: Env'l Concern R: Response Range

forests 
 
help preserve whales  → {y1,n1,y2,n2,...,y9,n9}
water − quality
 

where the range contains the possible responses y (yes), and n (no), for each of the nine

questions. E.g., that citizen p23 is not willing to act directly to preserve whales would be recorded

by mapping the point [p23, act directly, whales] of the domain into the appropriate point (say, n8)

in the range. In symbols: [p23, act directly, whales]  n8.

Mapping sentences (and the investigated contents) may be expanded systematically in two ways:

by extension--adding a new element to an existing facet (e.g. 'air quality' may be added to Q2); or

by intension--adding a new facet having at least two elements (e.g. in the above mapping

sentence replace 'preserve' by the facet {preserve, restore}).

Early FT was cocerned with reproducing the observed individual responses from derived

numerical scores. Such reproducibility, formulated as a discriminant analysis problem, was

 4

proposed by Guttman to be the criterion for the completeness of the facet design [19]. However,

specific scores are too volatile an aspect of data. A more promising direction seemed to be the

estimation of pairwise correlations from content considerations. Work by Foa [14, 15] and by

Guttman [19] led to the formulation of the contiguity hypothesis, which guided facet theorists for

many years: The correlation between two variables increases with the similarity between the

facet elements defining them. Here, 'contiguity' refers to proximity (semantic and correlational)

between observed variables.

Indeed, the origins of FT may be traced back to a correlational theory, the simplex [18], which

was proposed as a revision (in lieu of the alternative revision offered by multiple-factor analysis)

of Spearman's general factor theory of intelligence. The simplex theory for mental ability tests

hypothesizes as follows: Let the sequence of n tests t1,t2,...,tn be simply ordered with respect to

their complexity (a psychological-substantive content facet). Then, for every three tests ti, tj, tk,

(i<j<k) the partial correlation rik.j=0. This implies that in the formula for partial correlation the

numerator rik - rij rjk = 0, or

rik = rij rjk (1)

Taking the -log of (1) we obtain an additive relationship:

-log rik = (-log rij) + (-log rjk). Letting the distance between any two tests ti, tj be dij = - log rij, we

have dik = dij + djk

and the tests can be represented as points on a one dimensional euclidean metric space so that

correlations between them bear an explicit functional relationship to the distances:

rij = e(- dij) (2)

Example 2. Let rij = 1/4, rjk = 1/8. The simplex hypothesis (1) specifies that rik equals their

product:
 5

1/4 1/8 = 1/32 (3)

Taking the log (for simplicity, log2 rather than loge) of (3) and multiplying by -1 we get: 2 + 3 =

5. The additivity of the transformation ensures a one-dimensional representation of the tests:

Assigning the inter-test distances

dij = 2; djk = 3; dik = 5

we can map tests into a straight line:

...*----ti----*----tj----*----*----tk----*----...

<----2----><-------3------->

<------------5------------->

FT takes the line to represent a content facet, i.e., an underlying conceptual differentiation (e.g.,

test complexity facet). Eq.(2), with base 2 replacing e, reproduces the observed correlations from

the distances. Once a simplex theory has been established, correlations can be predicted from

distances implied by the content-facet analysis.

Ordinal simplex and other topological configurations. Since the metric version of the

simplex, illustrated above, was too stringent for psychological data, ways to "soften" the model

were proposed [18, 36, 37, 38]. The ordinal simplex, e.g., requires that inter-test distances along

the line would reproduce only the rank order of the n(n-1)/2 correlations between the n variables.

But in cases where facet analysis can predict order among facet elements only, and not among

their pairwise distances, a weaker condition suffices for mapping tests on the line--and a weaker

prediction is possible [40, 44]:

rik  min(rij, rjk) iff dik  max(dij, djk) (i<j<k) (10)

Additional correlational structures were proposed and discovered in empirical data. The
 6

circumplex was defined as the pattern of circularly ordered tests and was identified, e.g., in the

study of color perception [36, 38]. The radex was defined as a 2-dimensional configuration of

tests, combining concentric circumplexes with simplexes emanating from a common origin [18,

1, 53]. These parametrized formulations, too, gave way to the less stringent ordinal or nonmetric

formulations which led to better fit with behavioral data.

Multidimensional Scaling (MDS). For data analysis the problem was this: Given a set of n

objects (typically variables) with a matrix of pairwise similarity coefficients, rij (typically

correlations) between them, find a mapping of the objects into a suitable geometric space, where

dij is the distance in that space between objects i and j, such that:

(i) If rij>rkl then dij<dkl for all 1i,j,k,ln (11)

(ii) The dimensionality of the space is the smallest possible.

Further specifications on the mapping (e.g., the kind of distance function) as well as variations of

condition (11) have been discussed in [21, 44].

Following work by coombs [8, 9, 10] on interstimulus similarity and pair comparisons,

algorithms for solving this problem were proposed by Kruskal [26, 27], Guttman [21] and others.

Guttman's Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) was programmed [30] to attain, for a given

dimensionality, the best fit of the inter-object distances to the given coefficient matrix. These

computer programs have been successfully applied to research data in psychology, sociology and

other fields (see e.g. edited volumes [7, 25, 41]).

Subuniverses in SSA Concept space. Experience with mapping sentences has led to

interpreting points in the 'question space' Q as defining classes of questions rather than single

questions.

Example 3. In Example 1, the point [pay, water quality] may represent the subset of all specific
 7

questions that are classifiable into 'pay' by Q1 and into 'water quality' by Q2; e.g.: "Are you

willing to pay higher taxes in order to help preserve the quality of river water?" In principle,

then, there could be infinitely many questions that belong to [pay, water quality]. This led to

redefining Q as the set of all questions (observed or not) that conform to the mapping sentence

semantic structure (including its range facet). When the questions all have a common-meaning

range (CMR), Q is referred to as the "content universe". Hence, the set of all questions with a

given CMR define a content universe such as intelligence [35, 24], commitment to work [2] or

quality of life [47].

Concomitantly, the contiguity hypothesis, which originally referred to proximity between

variables, was replaced by the general regional hypothesis [42, 45] which concerns contiguity, in

the sense of adjacency between regions, in the SSA concept space:

The General Regional Hypothesis (Shye): Given a decomposition of Q into facets

Q1,Q2,...Qk (Q=Q1xQ2x...xQk) with Qi={qi1,...,qiki}) then

(i) The SSA concept representation space can be partitioned into connected regions each

containing all observed variables pertaining to a single class [q1j1, q2j2,...,qkjk].

(ii) If two classes of variables have the same facet designation in all but one, say, the h-th

facet, and if the two distinguishing facet elements, qhl and qhl+1 are conceptually specified

as adjacent, then their two regions would be adjacent.

The challenge for researchers in substantive domains, then, is to identify the empirically relevant

content facets, those for which the regional hypothesis holds.

The re-interpretation of Q as an abstract content space has led to interpreting it, as well as each

of its content facets, as a content continuum. Thus in the discovery of the radex of attitudes

toward local politics [39] it was realized that:

 8

The order specification for each of the facets actually holds for a continuum rather than just

for a list of discrete entities. The elements exhibited ... are only discrete points or perhaps

intervals on those continua which correspond to words existing in our language (p.7).

Evidence for lawfulness in complex behavioral data has been accumulated [2, 5, 7, 16, 24, 31,

35, 43, 50]. Simple, replicable partition patterns were defined in n-spaces [42]. Thus, in 2-space

three main partition patterns were noted:

(i) Partition into ordered stripes, by parallel straight lines (a 2-d generalization of the simplex);

(ii) Partition into circularly ordered sectors, by radii emanating from a common center (a 2-d

generalization of the circumplex);

(iii) Partition into ordered concentric rings, by concentric circles.

Content facets that are found to conform to these partitions are called respectively, axial, angular

and radial facets. Regional hypotheses are tested with respect to a given partition pattern. In

practice, specific content facets (e.g. 'life areas') have been identified, that play a similar role

(e.g., angular) across changing experimental contexts and even across different research domains

[28]. The computerized procedure for testing regional hypotheses, Faceted SSA [48, 49, 4],

depicts the concept space with observed variables marked as points, and then finds, for a pre-

specified facet, the best partition of the concept space. For that partition it computes the Facet

Separation Index (a measure of facet-to-partition goodness-of-fit).

A particular content universe may be decomposed into a number of independent facets. Thus, the

radex is a possible combination of a radial facet and an angular facet. The duplex is a

combination of two axial facets; the cylindrex--a combination in 3-space of the radex and an

axial facet, etc etc. (For a systematic description of partitions patterns see [42].)

Example 4. For the environmental attitude space of Example 1, the following is a possible
 9

hypothesis: Facet Q1 is radial and Facet Q2 is angular, and together Q1xQ2 form a radex.

A rationale for this yet untested hypothesis is that the environmental concerns (Q2) are likely to

be circularly ordered, as has been found in other investigated domains, while kinds of

contribution (Q1) would be linearly ordered with pay in the inner disk (where the environmental

concerns are least differentiated); organizational work, in an intermediate ring; and direct action

(being the most specific to the environmental concern), in the outermost ring, the ring that allows

for the greatest differentiation between the concerns.

FORESTS

act directly

organizational work
w

pay

WHALES

WATER
QUALITY
 10

Figure 1. The Radex of Attitudes towards Environmental Quality: An Example of a

Regional Hypothesis

Modern FT: A New Scientific Imagery. Given an investigated behavioral concept (such as

intelligence, positive attitude towards an object, adjustability etc) that may be attributed to

investigated subjects, FT conceives of the concept as the semantic space of all the variables that

assess it. In this imagery, each of the variables that comprise the concept is represented by a

point in an analog geometric space. The finite set of observed variables is but a sample from the

entire set compising the concept. If that sample is taken with the aid of a mapping sentence, it is

"stratified", relative to the a priori content facets. SSA enables inferences about the structure of

the concept from the sample of observed variables to the "population" of variables that comprise

the concept. This portrayal is encapsuled in the basic assumption of modern FT:

The Continuity Principle (Shye). The mapping of the universe of variables to a connected

subset of a geometric space is one-to-one and onto (e.g. [49]).

I.e., every point in the concept space represents a possible variable of that concept. The spatial

imagery of concepts implies that spatial orientation between regions--rather than correlations

between variables--is the way FT assesses affinity between conceptual components. Moreover,

partitionability of the concept-space may now be regarded as a new kind of statistic, whose

"values" are the particular partition patterns. Being a more general ("softer") aspect of the data

than correlations, or even correlation ranking, partitionability leads to more stable lawfulness and

theories (e.g., in intelligence research [35, 50, 51, 46], achievement motive research [43, 13]; and

in quality of life research [6, 45, 47]).

 11

FT and Complex Systems. FT has been regarded as a meta-theory or as scaffolding for the

construction of general scientific theories. Its application to the study of general action system

theory has proved useful for identifying the recursive "functioning mode facet" {expressive,

adaptive, integrative, conservative} as empirically relevant in diverse contexts [45, 47]. In

numerous studies this facet has been found to play an angular role, in accordance with theoretical

predictions. Faceted action system theory may well tie in with certain aspects of deterministic

chaos theory. In both theories, regularities are sought not in the phenomena immediately

observed but in their transformed abstract space (concept space and phase space resp.); and in

both, overall structures are governed by recursive operations.

2. Measurement FT: Multiple Scaling. If observed variables v1,...,vn with a common-meaning

range (CMR) represent well the investigated content universe, they may be used for measuring

subjects with respect to that concept. Let A1,...,An be the ranges of the n observed variables, each

Aj ordered from high to low with respect to the common meaning; and let A = A1xA2x...xAn be

the cartesian product of all the range facets, Aj (j=1...n). A system of observations is a mapping

from the observed subjects P to A: P → A i.e., each subject pi gets a score from each Aj (j=1...n):

pi  [ai1,ai2,...,ain]  a(pi). The point a(pi) in A is also called the profile of pi, and the set A’

(A’A) of observed profiles is called scalogram. FT's solution to the measurement problem is

based on the observation that the essential measurement information is embodied in the relations

of comparability and incomparability, defined between observed profiles thus: Two different

profiles ai=[ai1,ai2,...,ain] and aj=[aj1,aj2,...,ajn], are comparable, aiSaj, (with ai greater than aj, ai>aj)

if and only if aik  ajk for all k=1...n, and aik'  ajk' for some k'. Two different profiles are

incomparable, ai$aj, if neither ai>aj nor aj>ai. A, and therefore its subset A', form a partly ordered

set [3].
 12

Measurement requires a minimal coordinate space X, that would provide yardsticks into which

points a(pi) of A would be mapped:

Definition (Shye, [40, 44]). The p.o. dimensionality of scalogram A' is the smallest m (m 

n) for which there exist m facets X1...Xm (each Xi is ordered) and there exists a 1 - 1

mapping Q:X'→A' from X' (X'  X=X1x...xXm) to A' such that a>a' if and only if x>x'

whenever Q maps points x, x' in X' to points a, a' in A'.

The coordinate scales, Xi (i=1...m) represent underlying fundamental variables whose meanings

must be inferred in any specific application. The well known Guttman scale [17,52] (example:

1111, 1121, 1131, 2131, 2231, 2232) is simply a 1-d scalogram, i.e. one all of whose profiles are

comparable. In FT, only a Guttman scale, if confirmed, justifies measurement by a single score.

The Guttman scale (which orders subjects in a unidimensional measurement space) must not be

confused with the simplex (which orders variables in a unidimensional content space).

The procedure of identifying and interpreting the coordinate scales X1...Xm is called multiple

scaling. Multiple scaling is facilitated by Partial Order Scalogram Analysis by base Coordinates

(POSAC) for which algorithms and computer programs have been devised [44, 4]. In practice, a

particular dimensionality is attempted and a solution that best accommodates condition (12) is

sought. The POSAC/LSA program finds an optimal solution in 2-d coordinate space, then goes

on to analyze by Lattice Space Analysis (LSA) the role played by each of the variables in

structuring the POSAC 2-space, thereby facilitating interpretation of the derived coordinate

scales, X1, X2 [40, 44]. Recent developments include the algorithms for computerized

partitioning of the POSAC space by the range facet of each variable, which induces natural

intervals on the coordinate scales, X1, X2, [49, 4]. Applications of POSAC/LSA can be found,

e.g., in [33, 44 Ch. VII].

 13

3. Concept/Measurement Space Duality. Based on the same data matrix, Faceted SSA concept

space and POSAC measurement space are mathematically related. Proved relationships rely on

the introduction of a new kind of coefficient, E*, the coefficient of structural similarity [40,44].

While E* assesses pairwise similarity between variables, it does depend on variations in the

remaining n-2 variables observed. That is, in the spirit of FT, E* depends on the sampled

contents as well as on the sampled population. LSA1 procedure, within POSAC/LSA, is a

special version of SSA with E* as the similarity coefficient, and with lattice ("city block")

distance function. This suggests a plausible solution to a Guttman’s challenge [22]: What

correlation coefficient should one use in mapping the content space? E*, which links the two

spaces, is the natural candidate.

4. FT in Science and Statistics Today. Aspects of FT have made their way to the current

mainstream of social science and psychology. Examples are the Guttman Scale, the cartesian

design of questionnaires and the notion of facet (e.g., in Guilford's cube of intelligence); and the

widespread use of SSA (MDS), recently included in commercial statistical software packages.

Increasingly, statisticians and research scientists are becoming familiar with modern FT as a

powerful integrated approach to research design and data analysis.

References

[1] Anderson, T. W. (1959). Some stochastic process models for intelligence test scores. In K. J.

Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes (eds.), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press.

[2] Aranya N. Jacobson, D. & Shye, S. (1976). Smallest Space Analysis of potential work

mobiliy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 11, 165-173.

 14

[3] Birkhoff, G. (1948) Lattice Theory (revised ed.). New York: American Mathematical

Society, Colloquium Publications.

[4] Borg I. & Shye S. (1995). Facet Theory: Form and Content. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

[5] Borg I. & Leutner D. (1983). Dimensional models for the perception of rectangles.

Perception and psychophysics, 34, 257-269.

[6] Canter D. (Ed.). (1985). Facet Theory: Approaches to Social Research. New York: Springer.

[7] Cairns, D. (1990). Quality of Life Assessment of Haemodialysis Patients: An Application of

the Systemic Life Quality Model. Sydney: Macquarie University.

[8] Coombs, C. H. (1954). A method for the study of interstimulus similarity. Psychometrika, 19,

183-194.

[9] Coombs, C. H. (1958). On the use of inconsistency of preferences in psychological

measurement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 1-7.

[10] Coombs, C.H. (1964). Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.

[11] Coombs, C. H. & Kao, R. C. (1955). Nonmetric factor analysis. Engng. Res. Bull. Ann

Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.

[12] Elizur, D. (1970) Adapting to Innovations. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press.

[13] Elizur, D., (1986). Achievement motive and sport performance. International Review of

applied Psychology, 35, 209-224.

[14] Foa, U. (1958). The contiguity principle in the structure of interpersonal relations. Human

Relations, 11, 229-238.

[15] Foa, U. (1965). New developments in facet design and analysis. Psychological Review, 72,

262-274.

[16] Galinat, W. & Borg, I. (1987). On symbolic temporal information: beliefs about experience
 15

of duration. Memory and Cognition, 15, 308-317.

[17] Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review,

9:139-150.

[18] Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: the radex. In P.F. Lazarsfeld (ed.)

Mathemetical Thinking in the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press, 216-257.

[19] Guttman, L. (1959a). Introduction to facet design and analysis. Proceedings of the Fifteenth

International Congress of Psychology, Brussels-1957. Amsterdam: North Holland, 130-132.

[20] Guttman, L. (1959b). A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and action. American

Sociological Review, 24, 318-328.

[21] Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate

space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469-506.

[22] Guttman, L. (1977). What is not what in statistics. The Statistician, 26, 81-107.

[23] Guttman, L. (1982). What is not what is theory construction. In R Hauser D Mechanic & A

Haller (eds.) Social Structure and Behavior. New York: Academic Press 331-348. Reprinted in

Levy, S. (ed) Louis Guttman on Theory and Methodology: Selected Writings. Aldershot:

Dartmouth.

[24] Guttman, L. and Levy, S. (1991). Two structural laws for intelligence tests. Intelligence, 15,

79-103).

[25] Hox, J.J., Mellenbergh,G.M. and Swanborn, P.G. (Eds.) (1995). Facet Theory: Analysis and

Design. Zeist: SETOS.

[26] Kruskal, J.B. (1964a). Multidimensional Scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a

nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27.

[27] Kruskal, J.B. (1964b). Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling: a numerical method.

 16

Psychometrika, 29, 28-42.

[28] Levy, S. (1985). Lawful roles of facets in social theories. In D. Canter (ed.) Facet Theory:

Approaches to Social Research. New York: Springer.

[29] Levy, S. (Ed.) (1994). Louis Guttman on Theory and Methodology: Selected Writings.

Aldershot: Dartmouth.

[30] Lingoes, J.C. (1973). The Guttman-Lingoes Nonmetric Program Series. Ann Arbor, MI:

Mathesis Press.

[31] Marsden, P.V. & Laumann, E.O. (1978). The social structure of religious groups: a

replication and methodological critique. In S. Shye (ed.) Theory Construction and Data Analysis

in the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[32] Mevorach-Levy & Shye, S. (1993). Faceted systemic theory of distributive justice: quality

and utility, too. Proceedings of the fourth International Facet Theory Conference, Prague.

[33] Russett, B. & Shye, S. (1993). Aggressiveness, involvement and commitment in foreign

policy attitudes. In D. Caldwell & T.J. McKeown (eds.), Diplomacy, Force and Leadership:

Essays in Honor of Alexander E. George. Boulder, CO: Westview.

[34] Schlesinger, I.M. (1978). On some properties of mapping sentences. In S. Shye (ed.) Theory

Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[35] Schlesinger, I. M. & Guttman, L. (1969). Smallest Space Analysis of intelligence and

achievement tests. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 95-100.

[36] Shepard, R.N. (1962). The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an

unknown distance functio. Part I: Psychometrika, 27, 125-140. Part II: Psychometrika, 27, 219-

245.

[37] Shepard, R.N. (1966). Metric structures in ordinal data. Journal of Mathematical
 17

Psychology, 1966,3,287-315.

[38] Shepard, R.N. (1978). The circumplex and related topological manifolds in the study of

perception. In S. Shye (ed.) Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[39] Shye, S. (1971). A Note on Mapping Sentences and their Derivation through the Use of

SSA. Jerusalem: The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research (A technical Report). (Also in

Abu Gosh, S. & Shye, S. (1971) The Impact of the Elective Local Council System on Arab

Traditional Society in Israel. Jerusalem: The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research.

[40] Shye S. (1976). Smallest Space Analysis of Profiles and their Relationship to Partial Order

Scalogram Analysis of the Variables. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. (Technical Report).

[41] Shye, S. (Ed.) (1978a). Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[42] Shye, S. (1978b). Facet anlysis and regional hypotheses. In S. Shye (ed.) Theory

Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[43] Shye S. (1978c) Achievement motive: a faceted definition and structural analysis.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 13, 327-346.

[44] Shye, S. (1985a). Multiple Scaling: The Theory and Application of Partial Order Scalogram

Analysis. Amsterdam: North Holland.

[45] Shye, S. (1985b). Nonmetric multivariate models for behavioral action systems. In D.

Canter (ed.) Facet Theory: Approaches to Social Research. New York: Springer.

[46] Shye, S. (1988). Inductive and deductive reasoning: astructural reanalysis of ability tests.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 308-311.

[47] Shye, S. (1989). The systemic quality of life model: a basis for urban renewal evaluation.
 18

Social Indicators Research, 21, 343-378.

[48] Shye, S. (1991). Faceted SSA: A Computer Program for the PC. Jerusalem: The Israel

Institute of Applied Social Research.

[49] Shye, S. & Elizur, D. (1994). Introduction to Facet Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[50] Shye, S., Yanai, J., & Pick, C.G. (1994). Directional consistency: determinant of learned

maze performance of five mice strains. Behavioral Processes, 32, 117-132.

[51] Snow, R.E., Kyllonen, P.C. & Marshalek, B. (1984). The topography of ability and learning

correlations. In R.J. Sternberg (ed.) Advances in Psychology of Human Intelligence Vol 3.

(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, (47-103).

[52] Stouffer S. A. et al. (1950). Measurement and Prediction: Studies in social psychology in

World War II, Vol. IV. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[53] van den Wollenberg, A.L. (1978). Nonmetric representation of the radex in its factor pattern

parametrization. In S. Shye (ed.) Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral

Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Samuel Shye

View publication stats