Facet theory

Facet theory is a metatheory for the multivariate behavioral sciences that posits that scientific theories and
measurements can be advanced by discovering relationships between conceptual classifications of research
variables and empirical partitions of data-representation spaces. For this purpose, facet theory proposes
procedures for (1) Constructing or selecting variables for observation, using the mapping sentence
technique (a formal definitional framework for a system of observations), and (2) Analyzing multivariate
data, using data representation spaces, notably those depicting similarity measures (e.g., correlations), or
partially ordered sets, derived from the data.

Facet theory is characterized by its direct concern with the entire content-universe under study, containing
many, possibly infinitely many, variables. Observed variables are regarded just as a sample of statistical
units from the multitude of variables that make up the investigated attribute (the content-universe). Hence,
Facet theory proposes techniques for sampling variables for observation from the entire content universe;
and for making inferences from the sample of observed variables to the entire content universe. The
sampling of variables is done with the aid of the mapping sentence technique (see Section 1); and
inferences from the sample of observed variables to the entire content universe are made with respect to
correspondences between conceptual classifications (of attribute-variables or of population-members) and
partitions of empirical geometric representation spaces obtained in data analysis (see Sections 2 & 3).

Of the many types of representation spaces that have been proposed,[1] two stand out as especially fruitful:
Faceted-SSA (Faceted Smallest Space Analysis)[2][3] for structuring the investigated attribute (see Section
2); and POSAC (Partial Order Scalogram Analysis by base Coordinates)[4] for multiple scaling
measurements of the investigated attribute (see Section 3). 

Inasmuch as observed variables in a behavioral study form in fact but a sample from the content-universe of
interest, facet theory's procedures and principles serve to avoid errors that may ensue from incidental
sampling of observed variables, thus meeting the challenge of the replication crisis in psychological
research and in behavioral research in general.

Facet Theory was initiated by Louis Guttman[5] and has been further developed and applied in a variety of
disciplines of the behavioral sciences including psychology, sociology, and business administration.

The mapping sentence

Definition and properties of the mapping sentence

Definition (Guttman). A mapping sentence is a verbal statement of the domain and of the range of a
mapping including connectives between facets as in ordinary language.[6]

In the context of behavioral research, a mapping sentence is essentially a function whose domain consists of
the respondents and of the stimuli as arguments, and whose image consists of the cartesian product of the
ranges of responses to the stimuli, where each response-range is similarly ordered from high to low with
respect to a concept common to all stimuli. When stimuli are classified a priori by one or more content
criteria, the mapping sentence facilitates stratified sampling of the content-universe. A classification of the
stimuli by their content is called a content facet; and the pre-specified set of responses to a stimulus
(classifying respondents by their response to that stimulus) is called a range facet.
The mapping sentence defines the system of observations to be performed. As such, the mapping sentence
provides also the essential concepts in terms of which research hypotheses may be formulated.

An example from intelligence research

Suppose members pi of a population P are observed with respect to their success in a written verbal
intelligence test. Such observations may be described as a mapping from the observed population to the set
of possible scores, say, R = {1,…,10}: Pq1  → R, where q1 is the sense in which a specific score is assigned
to every individual in the observed population P, i.e., q1 is "verbal intelligence" in this example. Now, one
may be interested in observing also the mathematical or, more specifically, the numerical intelligence of the
investigated population; and possibly also their spatial intelligence. Each of these kinds of intelligence is a
"sense" in which population members pi may be mapped into a range of scores R  =  {1,…,10}. Thus,
'intelligence' is now differentiated into three types of materials: verbal (q1 ), numerical (q2) and spatial (q3).
Together, P, the population, and Q = {q1 , q2 , q3 }, the set of types of intelligence, form a cartesian product
which constitutes the mapping domain. The mapping is from the set of pairs (pi, qj) to the common range of
test-scores R = {1,…,10}: P × Q → R.

A facet is a set that serves as a component-set of a cartesian product. Thus, P is called the population facet,
Q is called a content facet, and the set of scores obtainable for each test is a range facet. The range facets of
the various items (variables) need not be identical in size: they may have any finite number of scores, or
categories, greater or equal to 2.

The Common Meaning Range (CMR)

The ranges of the items pertaining to an investigated content-universe – intelligence in this example –
should all have a Common Meaning Range (CMR); that is, they must be ordered from high to low with
respect to a common meaning. Following Guttman, the common meaning proposed for the ranges of
intelligence-items is "correctness with respect to an objective rule".

The concept of CMR is central in facet theory: It serves to define the content-universe being studied by
specifying the universe of items pertaining to that content-universe. Thus, the mapping-definition of
intelligence, advanced by facet theory is:

"An item belongs to the universe of intelligence items if and only if its domain requires performance of a
cognitive task concerning an objective rule and its range is ordered from high correctness to low correctness
with respect to that rule."

Mapping Sentence 1. A Framework for Observing Intelligence

An initial framework for observing intelligence could be Mapping Sentence 1.

The mapping sentence serves as a unified semantic device for specifying the system of intelligence test
items, according to the present conceptualization. Its content facet, the material facet, may now serve as a
classification of intelligence test items to be considered. Thus, in designing observations, a stratified
sampling of items is afforded by ensuring an appropriate selection of items from each of the material facet
elements; that is, from each class of items: the verbal, the numerical and the spatial.

Enriching the mapping sentence

The research design can be enriched by introducing to the mapping sentence an additional, independent
classification of the observations in the form of an additional content-facet, thereby facilitating systematic
differentiations of the observations. For example, intelligence items may be classified also according to the
cognitive operation required in order to respond correctly to an item: whether rule-recall (memory), rule-
application, or rule-inference. Instead of the three sub-content-universes of intelligence defined by the
material facet alone, we now have nine sub-content-universes defined by the cartesian multiplication of the
material and the mental-operation facets. See mapping sentence 2.

Mapping Sentence 2. A Framework for Observing Intelligence

Illustrating Intension: Adding a content facet to an extant mapping
sentence

Another way of enriching a mapping sentence (and the scope of the research) is by adding an element (a
class) to an existing content facet; for example, by adding Interpersonal material as a new element to the
extant material facet. See Mapping Sentence 3.

Content
profiles

Mapping Sentence 3. A Framework for Observing Intelligence

Illustrating Extension: Adding an element (a class) to an existing
content-facet
A selection of one element from each of the two content facets defines a content profile which represents a
sub-content-universe of intelligence. For example, the content profile (c2, q2) represents the application of
rules for performing mathematical computations, such as performing long division. The 3x4=12 sub-
content-universes constitute twelve classes of intelligence items. In designing observations, the researcher
would strive to include a number of varied items from each of these 12 classes so that the sample of
observed items would be representative of the entire intelligence universe. Of course, this stratified
sampling of items depends on the researchers' conception of the studied domain, reflected in their choice of
content-facets. But, in the larger cycle of the scientific investigation (which includes Faceted SSA of
empirical data, see next section), this conception may undergo adjustments and remolding, converging to
improved choices of content-facets and observations, and ultimately to robust theories in research domain.
In general, mapping sentences may attain high levels of complexity, size and abstraction through various
logical operations such as recursion, twist, decomposition and completion.

Cartesian decomposition and completion: an example

In drafting a mapping sentence, an effort is made to include the most salient content-facets, according to the
researcher's existing conception of the investigated domain. And for each content facet, attempt is made to
specify its elements (classes) so that they be exhaustive (complete) and exclusive (non-overlapping) of each
other. Thus, the element 'interpersonal' has been added to the incumbent 3-element material facet of
intelligence by a two-step facet-analytic procedure. Step 1, cartesian decomposition of the 3-element
material facet into two binary elementary facets: The Environment Facet, whose elements are 'physical
environment' and 'human-environment'; and the Symbolization Facet whose elements are 'symbolic' (or
high symbolization), and 'concrete' (or low symbolization). Step 2, cartesian completion of the material
facet is then sought by attempting to infer the missing material classifiable as 'human environment' and
'concrete'.

Table 1. Cartesian Decomposition of the Material Facet into Two Fundamental

Binary Facets Followed by a Cartesiam Completion of their Product

In facet theory, this 2×2 classification of intelligence-testing material may now be formulated as an
hypothesis to be tested empirically, using Faceted Smallest Space Analysis (SSA).

Complementary topics concerning the mapping sentence

Despite its seemingly rigid appearance, the mapping sentence format can accommodate complex semantic
structures such as twists and recursions, while retaining its essential cartesian structure.[7]
In addition to guiding the collection of data, mapping sentences have been used to content-analyze varieties
of conceptualizations and texts—such as organizational quality, legal documents and even dream
stories.[8][9]

Concepts as spaces: faceted SSA

Description of Faceted Smallest Space Analysis (Faceted SSA)

Facet theory conceives of a multivariate attribute as a content-universe defined by the set of all its items, as
specified by the attribute mapping-definition, illustrated above. In facet-theoretical data analysis, the
attribute (e.g., intelligence) is likened to a geometric space of suitable dimensionality, whose points
represent all possible items. Observed items are processed by Faceted SSA, a version of Multidmensional
Scaling (MDS)[10] which involves the following steps:

1. Receiving as input (or computing from input data) a matrix of similarity coefficients,
specifying, for each pair of items how similar they are. A common example is the
computation of a correlation-coefficient matrix from input data, where the size of a correlation
coefficient between two variables reflects the degree of similarity between them.
2. Mapping the items (variables) as points in a geometric space of a given dimensionality while
preserving as well as possible the condition: If rij>rkl then dij<dkl for all i,j,k,l where rij is the
similarity measure (e.g., correlation coefficient) between variables i,j and dij is the distance
between their points in the space. Most often, Euclidean distance function (Minkowsky
distance of order 2) is used. But other distance functions, especially the Manhattan distance
function (Minkowsky distance of order 1) are called for. (See Subsection Relating POSAC
Measurement Space to the SSA Concept Space below.) The goodness-of-fit of the
resulting mapping may be assessed by a loss function– Kruskal's Stress coefficient[11] or
Guttman's Coefficient of Alienation.[2]
3. Partitioning the space as well as possible, into simple regions (stripe, sectors or concentric
rings) whose variables are in 1-1 correspondence with a pre-conceived content-facet. To run
this option, content facet(s) must be specified as Faceted SSA input.

Step 3 of Faceted SSA incorporates the idea that observed variables included in the Faceted SSA
procedure, typically constitute a small subset from the countless items that define the attribute content-
universe. But their locations in space may serve as clues that guide the partitioning of the space into
regions, in effect classifying all points in space, including those pertaining to unobserved items (had they
been observed). This procedure, then, tests the regional hypothesis that the sub-content-universes defined
by a content-facet elements exist each as a distinct empirical entity. The Shye-Kingsley Separation Index
(SI) assesses the goodness-of-fit of the partition to the content-facet.[12]

The spatial scientific imagery suggested by Facet Theory has far reaching consequences that set Facet
Theory apart from other statistical procedures and research strategies. Specifically, it facilitates inferences
concerning the structure of the entire content-universe investigated, including unobserved items.

Example 1. The structure of intelligence

Intelligence testing has been conceived as described above, with Mapping Sentence 2 as a framework for
its

observation.[13] In many studies, different samples of variables conforming to Mapping Sentence 2 have
been analyzed confirming two regional hypotheses:
 The Material Content Facet corresponds to a
partition of the Faceted SSA map of
intelligence into sectors, each containing the
items of a single material — verbal, numeric,
and figural (spatial).
The Cognitive Operation Facet corresponds
to a partition of the Faceted SSA map of
intelligence into concentric rings, with the
innermost ring containing inference items;
the middle ring containing the rule-
application items; and the outermost ring
containing the rule-recall items.

The superposition of these two partition patterns

results in a scheme known as the Radex Theory of
Intelligence, see Figure 1.
Figure 1. The Radex Theory of Intelligence
The radex structure, which originated earlier as "a
new approach to factor analysis",[14] has been found
also in the study of color perception[15] as well as in other domains of research.

Faceted SSA has been applied in a wide variety of research areas including value research[16][17] social
work [18] and criminology[19][20] and many others.

Example 2. The structure of quality of

life

The Systemic Quality of Life (SQOL) has been

defined as the effective functioning of human
individuals in four functioning subsystems: the
cultural, the social, the physical and the personality
subsystems.[21] The axiomatic foundations of SQOL Figure 2. The Structure of the Systemic Quality
suggest the regional hypothesis that the four of Life (SQOL) Functioning Subsystems
subsystems should be empirically validated (i.e., item
of each would occupy a distinct region) and that they
be mutually oriented in space in a specific 2x2 pattern topologically equivalent to the 2x2 classification
shown in Figure 2 (i.e., personality opposite cultural, and physical opposite social). The hypothesis has
been confirmed by many studies.

Types of partition patterns

Of the many possible partitions of a 2-d concept space, three stand out as especially useful for theory
construction:

The Axial Partition Pattern: Partitioning of the space into stripes by parallel lines.
The Angular (a/k/a polar) Partition Pattern: Partitioning of the space into sectors by radii
emanating from a point in space.
The Radial (a/k/a modular) Partition Pattern: Partitioning of the space into concentric rings
by concentric circles.
The advantages of these partition patterns as likely models for behavioral data are that they are describable
by a minimal number of parameters, hence avoid overfitting; and that they are generalizable to partition in
spaces of higher dimensionalities.

In testing regional hypotheses, the fit of a content-facet to any one of these three models is assessed the
Separation Index (SI), a normalized measure of the deviation of variables from the region assigned to them
by the model.[12]

Concept spaces in higher dimensionalities have been found as well.[22]

Principles of faceted SSA: A summary

1. The attribute under study is represented by a geometric space.

2. Variables of the attribute are represented as points in that space. Conversely, every point in the geometric
space is a variable of the attribute. This is the Continuity Principle.[3]

3. The observed variables, located as points in the empirical Faceted SSA map, constitute but a sample
drawn from the many (possibly infinitely many) variables constituting the content universe of the attribute
investigated.

4. The observed variables chosen for SSA must all belong to the same content universe. This is ensured by
including in the SSA only variables whose ranges are similarly ordered with respect to a common meaning
(CMR).

5. The sample of variables marked on the Faceted SSA map is used as a guide for inferring possible
partitions of the SSA-attribute-map into distinct regions, each region representing a component, or
subdomain, of the attribute.

6. In Facet Theory, relationships between attribute components (such as verbal intelligence and numeric
intelligence as components of intelligence), are expressed in geometric terms –such as shapes and spatial
orientation – rather than in algebraic terms. Just as one would describe relationships between neighboring
countries in terms of their shapes and geographical orientation, not in terms of distances between them.

7. The imagery of an attribute as a continuous space, from which variables are sampled, implies that
clustering of variables in SSA map has no significance: It is just an artifact of the sampling of the variables.
Sampled variables that are clustered together may belong to different subdomains; just as two cities that are
close together may be located in different countries. Conversely, variables that are far apart, may belong to
the same sub-domain; just as two cities that are far apart may belong to the same country. What matters is
the identification of distinct regions with well-defined sub-domains. Facet Theory proposes a way of
transcending accidental clustering of variables by focusing on a robust and replicable aspect of the data,
namely the partitionability of the attribute-space.

These principles bring in new concepts, raise new questions, and opens new ways of understanding
behavior. Thus, Facet Theory represents a paradigm of its own for multivariate behavioral research.

Complementary topics in faceted SSA

Besides analyzing a data matrix of N individuals by n variables, as discussed above, Faceted SSA is
usefully employed in additional modes.
Direct measures of (dis)similarity. For a given a set of objects and a similarity (or dissimilarity) measure
between every pair of objects, Faceted SSA can provide a map whose regions correspond to a specified
classification of the objects. For example, in a study of color perception, a sample of spectral colors, with a
measure of perceived similarity between every pair of colors, yielded the radex theory of spectral color
perception.[15] In a study of community elites, a measure of distance devised between pairs of community
leaders, yielded a sociometric map whose regions were interpreted from the perspective of sociological
theory.[23]

Transposed data matrix. Switching the roles of individuals and variables, Faceted SSA may be applied to
individuals rather than to the variables. This rarely used procedure may be justified to the extent variables
evenly cover a research domain. For example, intercorrelations between members of a multidisciplinary
team of experts were computed based on their human quality-of life value assessments. The resulting
Faceted SSA map yielded a radex of disciplines, supporting the association between social institutions and
human values.[24]

Multiple scaling by POSAC

Description of Partial Order Scalogram Analysis by Coordinates (POSAC)

In Facet Theory, the measurement of investigated individuals (and, by extension, of all individuals
belonging to the sampled population) with respect to a multivariate attribute, is based on the following
assumptions and conditions:

Variables processed by Facet Theory measurement operations to be described below,

evenly cover the attribute content universe. To ensure such coverage, Facet Theory
measurement operations are often performed not on the sample of the observed items
themselves, but rather on composite variables that represent facet elements that had been
validated by Faceted SSA.
The sample of individuals is rich enough to allow existing score-profiles of the processed
variables to be observed.
In the resulting measurement, order relations among individuals should preserve sufficiently
well order relations (including comparability and incomparability; see below) between
individuals' profiles of the processed variables.
The result of the measurement operation yields the smallest number of scales;
The resultant scales represent fundamental variables whose interpretation derives from the
contents of the observed items, but does not depend on the particular sample of items
observed.

Partial order analysis of observed data. Let observed items v1 ,...,vn with a common-meaning range
(CMR) represent an investigated content universe; let A1 ,...,An be their ranges with each Aj ordered from
high to low with respect to the common meaning; and let A = A1 ×A2  × ... × An be the cartesian product of
all the range facets, Aj (j  =  1,...,n). A system of observations is a mapping P → A from the observed
subjects P to A, that is, each subject pi gets a score from each Aj (j = 1,...,n), or pi → [ai1 ,ai2 , ..., ain ]
a(pi). The point a(pi) in A is also called the profile of pi, and the subset A′ of A ( ) of observed
profiles is called a scalogram. Facet Theory defines relations between profiles as follows: Two different
profiles ai = [ai1 ,ai2 ,...,ain ] and aj = [aj1 ,aj2,...,ajn ], are comparable, denoted by aiSaj, with ai greater than
aj, ai  >  aj, if and only if aik  ≥  ajk for k  =  1,  ...,  n, and aik′  >  ajk′ for some k. Two different profiles are
incomparable, denoted by ai  $  aj, if neither ai  >  aj nor aj  >  ai. A, and therefore its subset A′, form a
partially ordered set.
Facet Theoretical measurement consists in mapping points a(pi) of A' into a coordinate space X of the
lowest dimensionality while preserving observed order relations, including incomparability:

Definition. 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′ (
) to A′ such that a > a′ if and only if x > x′ whenever Q maps points x, x′ in
X′ to points a, a′ ∈ A. [4]

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[25] [24] (example: 1111, 1121, 1131,
2131, 2231, 2232) is simply a 1-d scalogram, i.e. one all of whose profiles are comparable.

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. In practice, a particular dimensionality is attempted
and a solution that best accommodates the order-preserving condition 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 . Recent developments include the algorithms for computerized
partitioning of the POSAC space by the range facet of each variable, which induces meaningful intervals
on the coordinate scales, X, Y.

Example 3. TV watching patterns: analysis of simplified survey data [26]

Members of a particular population were asked four questions: whether they watched TV the night before
for an hour at 7 PM (hour 1), at 8 PM (hour 2), at 9 PM (hour 3) and at 10 PM (hour 4). A positive answer
to a question was recorded as 1, and a negative answer, as 0. Thus, for example, the profile 1010 represents
a person who watched TV at 7 PM and at 9 PM but not at 8 PM and at 10 PM. Suppose that out of the 16
combinatorially possible profiles, only the following eleven profiles were observed empirically: 0000,
1000, 0100, 0010, 0001, 1100, 0110, 0011, 1110, 0111, 1111. Figure 3 is an order-preserving mapping of
these profiles into a 2-dimensional coordinate space.

Given this POSAC solution, an attempt is made to

interpret the two coordinates, X1 and X2 , as two
fundamental scales of the investigated phenomenon of
evening TV watching by the investigated population.
This is done by, first, interpreting the intervals
(equivalence classes) within each coordinate, and then
trying to conceptualize the derived meanings of the
ordered intervals, in terms of a meaningful notion that
may be attributed to the coordinate.

In the present simplified example, this is easy:

Inspecting the map, we attempt to identify the feature
that distinguishes all profiles with given score in  X1 .
Thus, we find that profiles with X1 =4, and only they,
represent TV watching in the fourth hour. Profiles with
X1  = 3 all have 1 in the third watching hour but 0 at the
Figure 3. The Measurement of TV Watching:
Two-Dimensional Order Preserving Mapping of
the Set of 11 Observed Profiles

fourth hour, i.e., the third hour is the latest watching

hour. X1  = 2 is assigned to, and only to, profiles whose
latest watching hour is the second hour. And, finally, X1  = 1 is for the profile 1000 which represents the fact
that the first hour is the only – and therefore the latest – watching hour (ignoring the profile 0000 of those
who didn’t watch TV at the specified hours, and could be assigned (0,0) in this coordinate-space). Hence, it
may be concluded that intervals of coordinate X1 represent j=the latest hour—among the four hours
observed—in which TV was watched, (j = 1, …, 4). Similarly, it is found that intervals of coordinate X2
represent 5 − k for k (k = 1, …, 4) is the earliest hour of TV watching.

Indeed, for profiles of the observed set, which represent a single sequence of continuous TV watching,
specification of the earliest and latest watching hours, provide full description of the watching hours.

Example 3 illustrates key features of Multiple Scaling by POSAC that render this procedure a theory-based
multivariate measurement:

The two scores assigned by Multiple Scaling to every observed profile—and hence to every
person in the observed sample—replace the more numerous scores (four, in the present
example) of the observed variables, while retaining all observed order relations, including
incomparability. The new scores assess observed persons on the two coordinate-scales,
taken to constitute Nature's fundamental variables.
The two coordinate-scales have intrinsic meanings that probe into a deeper significance
than the observed variables considered severally. In the present example, the earliest and
the latest hour indeed exhaust the essential aspects of the pattern of TV watching, given the
particular set of observed profiles.
The concepts derived for the fundamental, unobserved coordinate-scales retain the CMR—
the essential meaning common to all observed variables. In the present example, the CMR
is more (vs. less) TV watching. For, considering the observed variables, each of them
records high (1) vs. low (0) TV watching in a given hour. And the derived coordinate-scales,
too, record high (4) vs. low (1) TV watching, since ceteris paribus, the later is the latest
watching hour, the more TV one watches (X1); and the earlier is the earliest watching hour,
the more TV one watches ( X2).

These features are present also in applications that are less obvious, to produce scales with novel meanings.

Example 4. Measuring distributive justice attitudes

In the systemic theory of distributive justice (DJ), alternative allocations of a given amount of an
educational resource (100 supplementary teaching hours) between gifted and disadvantaged pupils, may be
classified by one of four types, the preference for each reflecting one's DJ attitude:[27]

Equality, where the gifted and the disadvantaged pupils get the same amount of the supplementary
resource;

Fairness, where the disadvantaged pupils get more of the resource than the gifted, in proportion to their
weakness relative to the gifted;

Utility, where the gifted get more of the resource than the disadvantaged pupils (so as to promote future
contribution to the general good);

Corrective Action, where the disadvantaged pupils get more of the resource than the gifted over and above
the proportion of their weakness relative to the gifted pupils, (so as to compensate them for past
accumulated disadvantage);
Following the Faceted SSA validation of the four DJ modes of Equality, Fairness, Utility, and Corrective
Action, profiles based on eight dichotomized DJ attitudes variables observed on a sample of 191
respondents, were created. 35 of the 256 combinatorially possible profile were observed and analyzed by
POSAC to obtain the measurement space shown in Figure 4. For each of the variables an optimal partition-
line was computed that separates a high from a low score in that variable. (Logically, partition-lines must
look like non-increasing step functions.) Then, for each of the four attitude types, the characteristic
partition-line was identified as follows:

Fairness—a straight vertical

line;

Utility—a straight
horizontal line;

Equality—an L-shaped line;

Corrective action—an
inverted-L-shaped line

The content significance of

the intervals induced by
these partition-lines on the
X coordinate and on the Y
coordinate of the POSAC
space, are now identified
Figure 4. The Measurement of Distributive Justice Attitudes: Order-
and thereby define the
Preserving Map of Observed DJ Profiles Represented by their ID number
contents of the X and Y
Coordinate Scales of DJ
attitudes.

The X-coordinate Scale, interpreted as Enhanced Fairness Attitude Scale:

Interval 1. Low Fairness & Low Equality DJ Attitude

Interval 2. Low Fairness & High Equality DJ Attitude
Interval 3. High Fairness & Low Corrective Action DJ Attitude
Interval 4. High Fairness & High Corrective Action DJ Attitude

That is, Enhanced Fairness Attitude, even if low, (interval 1 and 2) is somewhat present when Equality is
favored (interval 2). And if Enhanced Fairness Attitude is high (intervals 3 and 4), it reaches the extreme
level (interval 4) when Corrective Action is favored.

The Y-coordinate Scale, interpreted as Enhanced Utility Attitude Scale:

Interval 1. Low Utility & Low Equality DJ Attitude

Interval 2. Low Utility & High Equality DJ Attitude
Interval 3. High Utility s & Low Corrective Action DJ Attitude
Interval 4. High Utility & High Corrective Action DJ Attitude

That is, Enhanced Utility Attitude, even if low, (interval 1 and 2) is somewhat present when Equality is
favored (interval 2). If Enhanced Utility Attitude is high (intervals 3 and 4), it reaches the extreme level
(interval 4) when Corrective Action is favored. (This may well reflect the sentiment that, in the long run, the
advancement of disadvantaged pupils serves the common good.)
The meanings of the fundamental variables, X and Y, while relying on the concepts of fairness and of
utility, respectively, suggest new notions that modify them. The new notions were christened Enhanced (or
Extended) Fairness and Enhanced (or Extended) Utility.

Complementary topics in partial order spaces

Higher order partition lines. The above simple measurement space illustrates partition-lines that are straight
or have one bend. More complex measurement spaces result with items whose partition-lines have two or
more bends.[28]

While partial order spaces are used mainly for analyzing score profiles (based on range facets), under
certain conditions, they may be applied to the analysis of content profiles; i.e., those based on content
facets.[29]

Relating POSAC Measurement Space to the SSA Concept Space. Based on the same data matrix, POSAC
measurement space and Faceted SSA concept space are mathematically related. Proved relationships rely
on the introduction of a new kind of coefficient, E*, the coefficient of structural similarity.[4] While E*
assesses pairwise similarity between variables, it does depend on variations in the remaining n-2 variables
processed. That is, in the spirit of Facet Theory, E* depends on the sampled contents as well as on the
sampled population. LSA1 procedure, within 2-dimensional POSAC/LSA program, is a special version of
SSA with E* as the similarity coefficient, and with lattice ("city block") as the distance function. Under
specified conditions, LSA1 may be readily derived from the boundary scales of the POSAC configuration,
thereby highlighting concept/measurement space duality.

Facet theory: comparisons and comments

Concerned with the entire cycle of multivariate research – concept definition, observational design, and
data analysis for concept-structure and measurement, Facet Theory constitutes a novel paradigm for the
behavioral sciences. Hence, only limited aspects of it can be compared with specific statistical methods.

A distinctive feature of Facet Theory is its explicit concern with the entire set of variables included in the
investigated content-universe, regarding the subset of observed variables as but a sample from which
inferences can be made. Hence, clusters of variables, if observed, are of no significance. They are simply
unimportant artifacts of the procedure for sampling of the variables. This is in contrast with cluster analysis
or factor analysis where recorded clustering patterns determine research results and interpretations. There
have been various attempts to describe technical differences between Factor Analysis and Facet
Theory.[30][31] Briefly, it may be said that while Factor Analysis aims to structure the set of variables
selected for observation, Facet Theory aims to structure the entire content universe of all variables,
observed as well as unobserved, relying on the continuity principle and using regional hypotheses as an
inferential procedure.

Guttman's SSA, as well as Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) in general, were often described as a
procedure for visualizing similarities (e.g., correlations) between analyzed units (e.g., variables) in which
the researcher has specific interest. (See, for example, Wikipedia, October 2020: "Multidimensional scaling
(MDS) is a means of visualizing the level of similarity of individual cases of a dataset"). Modern Facet
Theory, however, concerned with theory construction in the behavioral sciences, assigns SSA/MDS space
a different role. Regarding the analyzed units as a sample of statistical units representing all units that
pertain to the content-universe, their dispersion in the SSA/MDS space is used to infer the structure of the
content universe. Namely, to infer space partitionings that define components of the content-universes and
their spatial interrelationships. The inferred structure, if replicated, may suggest a theory in the investigated
domain and provide a basis for theory-based measurements.
Misgivings and responses

One reservation that has been voiced concerns the usefulness of a successful SSA map (one whose
partition-pattern matches a content-classification of the mapped variables). What are the consequences of an
SSA map? Does such a map qualify as a theory?

In response, it may be pointed out that (a) consistently replicated empirical partition-patterns in a domain of
research constitute a scientific lawfulness which, as such, are of interest to Science; (b) Often a partition-
pattern leads to insights that explain behavior and may have potential applications. For example, the Radex
Theory of Intelligence implies that inferential abilities are less differentiated by kinds of material than
memory (or rule-recall, see Example 1 above). (c) Faceted SSA is a useful preliminary procedure for
performing meaningful non arbitrary measurements by Multiple Scaling (POSAC). See Example 4.

A common doubt about SSA was voiced by a sympathetic but mystified user of SSA: "Smallest Space
Analysis seems to come up with provocative pictures that an imaginative observer can usually make some
sense of –– in fact, I have often referred to SSA as the sociologist's Rorschach test for imagination".[32]
Indeed, missing in Facet Theory are statistical significance tests that would indicate the stability of
discovered or hypothesized partition patterns across population samples. For example, it is not clear how to
compute the probability of obtaining a hypothesized partition pattern, assuming that in fact the variables are
randomly dispersed over the SSA map.

In response, facet theorists claim that in Facet Theory the stability of research results is established by
replications, as is the common practice in the natural sciences. Thus, if the same partition-pattern is
observed across many population samples (and if no unexplained counterexamples are recorded),
confidence in the research outcome would increase. Moreover, Facet Theory adds a stringent requirement
for establishing scientific lawfulness, namely that the hypothesized partition-pattern would hold also across
different selections of variables, sampled from the same mapping sentence.

Facet Theory is regarded as a promising metatheory for the behavioral sciences by Clyde Coombs, an
eminent psychometrician and pioneer of mathematical psychology, who commented: “It is not uncommon
for a behavioral theory to be somewhat ambiguous about its domain. The result is that an experiment
usually can be performed which will support it and another experiment will disconfirm it. … The problem
of how to define the boundaries of a domain, especially in social and behavioral science, is subtle and
complex. Guttman’s facet theory (see Shye, 1978) is, I believe, the only substantial attempt to provide a
general theory for characterizing domains; in this sense, it is a metatheory. As behavioral science advances
so will the need for such theory.”[33]

References
1. Lingoes, James C. (1973). The Guttman–Lingoes nonmetric program series. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Mathesis Press.
2. Guttman, Louis (1968). "A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate
space for a configuration of points". Psychometrika. 33 (4): 469–506.
doi:10.1007/BF02290164 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02290164).
hdl:2027/uiug.30112032881820 (https://hdl.handle.net/2027%2Fuiug.30112032881820).
S2CID 120611213 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:120611213).
3. Shye, S.; Elizur, D. (1994). Introduction to Facet Theory: Content Design and Intrinsic Data
Analysis in Behavioral Research (https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412984645). Thousand
Oaks California: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412984645 (https://doi.org/10.41
35%2F9781412984645). ISBN 978-0-8039-5671-1.
4. Shye, Samuel (1985). Multiple Scaling: The Theory and Application of Partial Order
Scalogram Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland. ISBN 0-444-87870-X.
 5. Guttman, L. (1959). Introduction to facet design and analysis. Proceedings of the Fifteenth
International Congress of Psychology, Brussels-1957. Amsterdam: North Holland, 130-132.
6. Shye, Samuel (1978). Theory construction and data analysis in the behavioral sciences
(1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0-87589-379-1. OCLC 4587945 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/oclc/4587945).
7. 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. (A
volume in honor of Louis Guttman)
8. Wozner, Yochanan (1990). People Care in Institutions: A conceptual schema and its
application. New York: . New York: Haworth. ISBN 1-56024-082-2.
9. Veerman, (1992)., Philip E. (1992). The Rights of the Child and the Changing Image of
Childhood. Dordrect, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff. ISBN 0-7923-1250-3.
10. Borg, I. & Groenen, P. (2005). Modern Multidimensional Scaling: theory and applications
(2nd ed.) New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-94845-4
11. Kruskal, J. B. (1964). "Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric
hypothesis". Psychometrika. 29: 1–27. doi:10.1007/BF02289565 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2
FBF02289565). S2CID 48165675 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:48165675) –
via doi:10.1007/BF02289565.
12. Borg, I & Shye, S. (1995). Facet Theory: Form and Content. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, pp.
143–146.
13. Schlesinger, I. M.; Guttman, Louis (1969). "Smallest space analysis of intelligence and
achievement tests" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026868). Psychological Bulletin. 71 (2):
95–100. doi:10.1037/h0026868 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0026868). ISSN 1939-1455 (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/issn/1939-1455).
14. 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.
15. 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 (pp. 29-80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (A volume in honor of Louis Guttman)
16. Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical
Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology. Vol. 25,1-65.
17. Borg, I., Hertel, G., Krumm, S. & Bilsky, W. (2019). Work Values and Facet Theory: From
Intercorrelations to Individuals. International Studies of Management & Organization, 49:3,
283-302, DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2019.1623980
18. Davidson-Arad, B. (2005). Structural analyses of the quality of life of children at risk Social
Indicators Research 73: 409–429.
19. Canter, D. & Fritzon, K. (1998). Differentiating arsonists: A model of firesetting actions and
characteristics. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 73–96.
20. Salfati, C. G., & Canter, D. (1999). Differentiating stranger murders: Profiling offender
characteristics from behavioral styles. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 391– 406.
21. Shye, Samuel (1989). "The Systemic Life Quality model: A Basis for Urban Renewal
Evaluation" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27520775). Social Indicators Research. 21 (4):
343–378. doi:10.1007/BF00303952 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00303952). ISSN 0303-
8300 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0303-8300). JSTOR 27520775 (https://www.jstor.org/sta
ble/27520775). S2CID 144914422 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144914422).
22. Levy, S. (1985). Lawful roles of facets in social theories. In D. Canter (Ed.) Facet Theory:
Approaches to Social Research. New York: Springer.
23. Laumann, Edward O.; Pappi, Franz Urban (1973). "New Directions in the Study of
Community Elites" (https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094396). American Sociological Review. 38
(2): 212. doi:10.2307/2094396 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2094396). ISSN 0003-1224 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/0003-1224). JSTOR 2094396 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/209439
6).
24. Shye, S. (2009). From the simplex of political attitudes to the radex of universal values: the
development of the systemic top-down approach to value research. In Elizur, D. & Yaniv, E.
(Eds.), Theory construction and multivariate analysis: applications of the Facet Approach.
(11-24). Ramat-Gan, Israel: FTA Publications. ISBN 978-965-7473-01-6.
25. Guttman, Louis (1944). "A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data" (https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/208
6306). American Sociological Review. 9 (2): 139–150. doi:10.2307/2086306 (https://doi.org/
10.2307%2F2086306). ISSN 0003-1224 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0003-1224).
JSTOR 2086306 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2086306).
26. Levinsohn, H. (1980). Radio listening and television watching among the Arab population in
Israel. Jerusalem: The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research.
27. Kedar, Y. & Shye, S. (2015). The measurement of distributive justice attitudes: Multiple
Scaling by POSAC. Proceedings of the 15th International Facet Theory Conference, New
York, August 2015 (pp. 96–105). http://fordham.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1012&context=ftc
28. Russett, B. & Shye, S. (1993). Aggressiveness, involvement and commitment in foreign
policy attitudes: Multiple scaling. In Caldwell D. and McKeown T. (Eds.), Diplomacy, Force
and Leadership: Essays in honor of Alexander E. George (pp. 41–60). Boulder: Westview.
29. Guttman, Louis (1959). "A Structural Theory For Intergroup Beliefs and Action" (https://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/2089380). American Sociological Review. 24 (3): 318–328.
doi:10.2307/2089380 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2089380). ISSN 0003-1224 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/issn/0003-1224). JSTOR 2089380 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2089380).
30. Guttman, L. (1982). Facet Theory, Smallest Space Analysis, and Factor Analysis. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 54, 491-493. (Addendum to Guttman, R. and Shoham, I. (1982). The
structure of spatial ability items: a faceted analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 487-
493).
31. Shye, S. (1988). Inductive and Deductive Reasoning: A Structural Reanalysis of Ability
Tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, pp. 308-311. (Appendix: Multidimensional Scaling
Versus Factor Analysis: A Methodological Note).
32. 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. (A volume in honor of Louis Guttman).
33. Coombs, C. H. (1983). Psychology and Mathematics: An Essay on Theory. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press 1983.

Further reading
Guttman, R. & Greenbaum, C. W. (1998). "Facet Theory: Its Development and Current
Status." European Psychologist, Vol. 3, No. 1, March 1998, pp. 13–36.
Levy, S. (Ed.) (1994). Louis Guttman on Theory and Methodology: Selected Writings.
Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Canter (Ed.) (1985). Facet Theory: Approaches to Social Research. New York: Springer.
Guttman, R. (1994). Radex Theory. In Robert J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human
Intelligence. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 907–912.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Facet_theory&oldid=1015851558"