Table Of ContentSSSP
Springer
Series in
Social
Psychology
Springer Series in Social Psychology
Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control-Theory Approach to Human Behavior
Charles S. Carver/Michael F. Scheier
Gender and Nonverbal Behavior
Clara Mayo/Nancy M. Henley (Editors)
Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior
William Ickes/Eric S. Knowles (Editors)
Toward nansformation in Social Knowledge
Kenneth J. Gergen
The Ethics of Social Research: Surveys and Experiments
Joan E. Sieber (Editor)
The Ethics of Social Research: Fieldwork, Regulation, and Publication
Joan E. Sieber (Editor)
Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion
James R. Averill
The Social Psychology of Creativity
Teresa M. Amabile
Sports Violence
Jeffrey H. Goldstein (Editor)
Nonverbal Behavior: A Functional Perspective
Miles L. Patterson
Basic Group Processes
Paul B. Paulus (Editor)
Attitudinal Judgment
J. Richard Eiser (Editor)
Social Psychology of Aggression: From Individual Behavior to Social Interaction
Amelie Mummendey (Editor)
Directions in Soviet Social Psychology
Lloyd H. Strickland (Editor)
Sociophysiology
William M. Waid (Editor)
Compatible and Incompatible Relationships
William Ickes (Editor)
Facet Theory: Approaches to Social Research
David Canter (Editor)
Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior
Julius Kuhll Jiirgen Beckmann (Editors)
SSSP
Facet Theory
Approaches to
Social Research
Edited by
David Canter
With 76 Figures
[I]
Springer-Verlag
New York Berlin Heidelberg Tokyo
David Canter
Department of Psychology
University of Surrey
Guildford, Surrey GU2 5HX
United Kingdom
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Facet theory.
(Springer series in social psychology)
Includes bibliographies and indexes.
1. Social psychology-Methodology-Addresses, essays,
lectures. 2. Social sciences-Methodology-Addresses,
essays, lectures. I. Canter, David V. II. Series.
HM251.F24 1985 301'.072 84-14174
©1985 by Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1s t edition 1985
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form without
written permission from Springer-Verlag, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10010,
U.S.A.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication,
even if the former are not especially identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names,
as understood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used
freely by anyone.
Typeset by Ampersand Inc., Rutland, Vermont.
987 654 3 2 1
ISBN-13: 978-1-4612-9537-2 e-ISBN-13: 978-1-4612-5042-5
DOl: 10.1 007/978-1-4612-5042-5
Preface
This work has the aim of making facet theory, and the approach to research which
derives from it, more accessible to behavioral and social scientists than has been
possible in the past. In a first section the book gives the background to the theory
and associated methods of analysis, illustrating the major components of the ap
proach in use. A second section then provides detailed examples of the applications
of the facet approach in developmental, clinical, and environmental psychology,
as well as in studies of attitudes and mental performance. The third section provides
some further technical details on recent developments in the facet approach as well
as a computer program listing.
The facet approach to social and behavioral research can be traced at least to the
late 1940s (as discussed by Gratch, 1973) and the logical principles on which it is
based have clear roots in Descartes' algebra and Fisher's experimental designs.
Faceted taxonomies have been used as a basis for library cataloging systems (Athan,
1967). Published applications in psychology have covered many areas of theory
and application. Yet despite this ancestry and diversity the facet approach is still
little known by psychologists and other social scientists and, where known, poorly
understood. For although one or two reviews do note the contribution of the facet
approach, most notably Anastasi's (1983) review of trait concepts, most current
texts on research methods and multivariate statistics rarely mention the facet ap
proach, or even acknowledge the purely technical accounts of it which do exist
(e.g., Borg, 1977).
Some reasons for the little attention paid to the approach are considered in Chapter
1, but it is likely that it is its unorthodox qualities combined with its breadth of
uses which make it so difficult for the novice to grasp. It is also only recently that
a "critical mass" of examples has become available so that people wishing to use
the approach for the first time can find previous work on which to model their own
early attempts, and those people already using the approach can learn from mem
bership in a community of like-minded colleagues.
vi Preface
The Facet Approach
The facet approach to research is based on facet theory, developed in the main by
Louis Guttman and his colleagues (see Gratch, 1973). Facet theory is a theory about
research activity and so it should accurately be called a metatheory because it is a
theory about how theories themselves are specified and tested. In Chapter 2 Jennifer
Brown provides an introduction to the components of facet theory and illustrations
of how it is carried out.
It is important to emphasize that facet theory makes no particular stand on
psychological or social concepts or methods. Any theory, such as learning theory,
signal detection theory, personal construct theory, or whatever, could benefit from
being couched in facet-theoretical terms and tested using the facet approach to data
analysis. Generally, people using the facet approach have not chosen to connect
their work directly to existing major theories, using their faceted definitions to
generate their own theoretical frameworks. The variety of frameworks used, how
ever, illustrates the essential impartiality of the approach. These frameworks have
drawn upon dispositional as well as contextual explanatory concepts, and have been
group oriented as well as individually focused. Thus, although the facet approach
probably has a definite range of theoretical convenience, there are no indications
as yet as to where the limits of that range might be.
One of the reasons for the flexibility of the approach is undoubtedly the simplicity
and elegance of the central construct of facet theory, that is, the facet. A facet, put
in everyday language, is any set of mutually exclusive categories. For instance, all
furniture may be described in terms of the room in which it might be used; its price,
style, etc. "Rooms," "prices," and "styles" are all facets. So even though a chair
may be found in a living room or a bedroom, living rooms and bedrooms are distinct
classes of "room," and so potentially useful elements in the "room" facet for
describing furniture use.
Through elaboration of this simple basis, discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, such as
ordered and nonordered facets and the exploration of the roles facets play in relation
to each, a logically consistent procedure for defining research problems is available.
By recognizing that these definitions are amenable to test through the multivariate
examination of critical properties of the data, the specification of facets becomes a
basis for theory validation and elaboration.
If this novel approach to theory development had been the only product of facet
theory then it is unlikely that this book would have been produced. It would certainly
not have gotten beyond Chapter 2! For it is the consistencies and replicability of
theoretical formulations, expressed and tested in facet terms, which has been the
major contribution of the approach. Chapters 3 and 4 provide summary details of
two distinct yet related sets of findings of the consistencies found using the facet
perspective. The illustrations and applications throughout Part II also show the way
the facet approach leads to a productive, cumulative development of scientific
activity.
It is the possibility of a cumulative social science which is so inviting about the
facet approach, not how it works or even what is has achieved so far. Unfortunately,
Preface vii
with the advent of readily available, high-powered statistical computing many re
searchers have gotten stuck at the stage of using complex procedures for data
reduction and analysis without systematic theory development. This often leads to
an ineffective use of these powerful procedures. Facet theory helps researchers to
lift their eyes beyond their computer printouts and encourages them to broaden their
horizons.
The Geometry of Systems
One aspect of the facet approach which has been consolidated most repeatedly has
been the fruitful representation in geometric form of the relationships between
components of a psychological or social system. Even the most casual reader will
notice that the chapters of this book contain many partitioned circles, divided squares,
cylinders, and other geometric shapes. Each of these summarizes a pattern of
relationships between a number of different variables.
Such representations are certainly not new to psychologists and sociologists. Kurt
Lewin (1935), for example, used geometric representations to good effect many
years ago. What is different here is that these representations are directly tested in
the data. They are not just schematic illustrations. A further difference is the
consistency with which these geometries have been found empirically and the various
geometries which have been found useful. But most importantly, these spatial
patterns have been integrated into clear theoretical frameworks rather than being
just illustrations of particular points in an argument.
The ability of facet theorists to conceptualize the relationships between the com
ponents of complex systems, as in the models of intelligence and attitudes, by the
use of empirically verifiable spatial patterns eases the task of theory development
to a remarkable degree. Once the researcher has identified the domain in which a
study is being conducted, then if models already exist for that domain, it is possible
to move ahead very rapidly by drawing directly upon those models to shape further
research endeavors.
The geometric representation of systems is built upon a number of simple two
dimensional shapes. The triangle, the rectangle, and the circle are obvious examples.
When these are combined into three-dimensional forms another set of elementary
shapes are generated: cubes, cylinders, spheres. As Shlomit Levy shows in Chapter
3 many of these elementary three-dimensional forms have been found to be of value
in summarizing the relationships between the components of the complex systems
studied.
However, refinements to these three-dimensional models are possible. For ex
ample, a cylinder in which the "section" is triangular rather than rectangular (i.e.,
a cone) would represent a system in which the components making up the "section"
varied in relation to the components making up the "plan." For example, in Chapter
5 Sydney Hans and her colleagues make use of this conelike model to summarize
the relationships between development and susceptibility. In a simple cylinderlike
model, such as the one proposed by Ian Donald in Chapter 6, the facets which give
viii Preface
rise to the "plan" are not seen to interact with those that make up the "section."
Thus a cone can be seen as a "special case" of a cylinder. The theories which are
encapsulated in a cylindroid model would be expected to apply to a conelike one
for the same domain, but the cone model would require some extra theoretical input
to account for its taper.
Complex Structures
One of the developments which is evolving out of the use of simple geometries to
represent empirically verifiable principles is the use of more complex geometries
as a basis for theories about more specific and detailed systems. These complex
models are beginning to be reported in the recent facet literature and some are
discussed by Shepard (1978). Shalit (1983), for instance, has suggested that a spiral
is a fruitful model for understanding human coping with stress. Four-dimensional
models have also been proposed by Guttman and Levy (1975) and by Canter and
Rees (1982). In the latter case the fourth dimension has some special implications
because it adds the classification of roles to the domain of attitudes, thus using the
fourth dimension as a vehicle for bringing together two areas of theory development.
As with any increase in complexity there is a danger here. Such models as spirals
and cylinders found in four dimensions are so novel to social scientists and possibly
so difficult to describe and validate that they can become solely an end in themselves.
Once the researcher has shown that there is empirical support for the model there
is a temptation to move on to other models, or to look for it again in other contexts,
without asking what it signifies for substantive issues in theory development or
application. Of course, until a researcher is confident that a model has a stable
validity there is little motivation to explain it. It was, after all, after the establishment
of the structure of DNA that the many implications of that structure began to be
appreciated (Watson 1968). But for an approach that promises so much, facet theory
must honor its promises and not become mesmerized by the pretty sights along the
way.
Superordinate Theories
The opposite yet complementary direction from the refinement and elaboration of
complex models is the move towards ever more simple, elegant, and general models.
In Chapter 4 Samuel Shye presents a remarkable attempt at developing an overall
model for studying behavioral action systems. As such it is bound to have severe
critics and staunch defenders. But whether the model stands the tests of time or
not, it is important as an illustration of one direction in which facet research can
go. On a less grand scale the cylindroid models of attitudes discussed by Levy in
Chapter 3 and Donald in Chapter 6 also illustrate the way in which superordinate
theories can evolve within the facet framework.
The difference between these models and the general models of Guilford in
Preface ix
intelligence, for example, or Cattell in personality theory, requires clarification.
Typically, the components of those models are empirically supported but not the
relationships between those components. The orthogonal, linear relationships are
usually assumed within the statistical procedures used. Indeed, as noted by Anastasi
(1983), recent work by Guilford (1981) has shown the power of taking a facet
perspective on his original data.
Reanalysis of Existing Data
The application of the facet approach to existing data sets, collected by researchers
when ignorant of the possibilities of a facet analysis, is a further development,
illustrated in the present volume by Chapters 8 and 9. This is an especially powerful
scientific enterprise, because if a particular model can be clearly demonstrated by
one researcher from evidence collected by another independent researcher it is a
strong test of the reliability of the findings, more especially if that model replicates
models found in other contexts with other data sets.
The effective use of resources implied by the reanalysis of existing data should
also not be underemphasized. The collection of clear, reliable data of any scale is
an extremely costly enterprise. The more that can be learned from any data set, the
better. Furthermore, with the reduction in social science research budgets throughout
the world it is increasingly important to make maximum use of what ever good
material is available.
Meta-Analysis
If the value of reanalyzing existing data is accepted then it is only a small step to
compare a number of previously published studies in a systematic way. This analysis
of a number of published studies is becoming referred to as meta-analysis (Rosenthal,
1983). This is an approach which shares the aspirations of the facet approach. Both
facet theory and meta-analysis take the stance of making the most effective sense
possible of the existing publications and data sets available in order to achieve a
more cumulative social science. Various types of data and publications in an area
of study are examined in toto in order to establish the major trends.
Meta-analysis thus sees science as building upon a cumulation of many existing
studies. It sees the researcher's task as being the identification of trends and themes
which are common across many separate studies. But rather than hoping for a
synthesis to emerge from flashes of insight or particular studies of great note, the
meta-analyst looks to common trends and findings across many studies. Unfortu
nately, most meta-analytic studies are conducted within a relatively idiosyncratic
format. The specification of the items measured and the mode of analysis used are
often specific to the individual carrying out the study, or there is an emphasis on
"significance" levels rather than on substantive contribution to theory.
Within the facet framework, as Shalit (1977), for example, has shown, a mul-
x Preface
tivariate structure can be postulated from the consideration of a literature. He also
demonstrates that the techniques are available for identifying whether or not the
postulated definitions are actually supported by the literature. In Shalit's case it was
possible to show that the effectiveness of coping, as revealed through an examination
of 75 studies, was a function of the nature of the stress-inducing situation and of
the coping mechanisms which the individual brought to bear. Individual studies
could be seen to be rather special cases of general trends when conceptualized
within this overall framework.
In some senses everyone who uses the facet approach is essentially a meta
analyst. They look for trends which are common across a number of separate studies,
rather than looking for a particular finding to defend their point. In other words
replication is the key criterion within which the facet approach operates. Precision
and construct validity, as well as notions of internal reliability, are all subservient
to this more general scientific aspiration of replication. The ability to demonstrate
that patterns in nature can be consistently identified is the essence of the facet
approach. It is therefore not surprising to find in most of the chapters of this book
that the authors go to some pains to demonstrate that their findings can be observed
across quite separate studies and content domains.
Qualitative Approaches
Another trend which has been growing, at least since the writings of Gordon Allport,
George Kelly, and Abraham Maslow, but which has clear origins in the work of
William James and Wilhelm Wund, is that towards harnessing more qualitative
approaches to social science research. Anthropologists and ethnomethodologists
have always emphasized the importance of dealing with the full richness of human
experience and expression. Psychologists, on the other hand, and many other social
scientists have felt that their scientific discipline would be challenged if they were
to move far away from essentially quantitative data measuring techniques. In re
viewing this debate in a recent summary of the use of interviews in research (Brenner
et aI., 1984) it has been argued that qualitative data is also feared because of the
difficulty of analyzing it, and the fear exists that a lack of systematic results will
make the data collected unpublishable.
However, increasingly, procedures such as open-ended interviews, account gath
ering, repertory grids, and sorting tasks have come to the fore and are forcing social
scientists to think directly about the definitional and analysis problems inherent in
this type of material. Initially, such procedures, most notably the repertory grid,
were dealt with by imposing a particular computer analysis on the data, no matter
what the models were for the research activity. But as people began to become
more aware of the distortions this introduced into the data and the psychological
subtleties it removes (as discussed by Canter et aI., 1984) so the search was on to
find other research frameworks within which to use this material.
The facet approach helps to resolve these difficulties in two ways. First of all,
by developing faceted definitions it is possible to provide a formal and reasonably
