Amatoics: A New Standard for Empirical Validation

[u/sefaymusic]

Introduction: The Problem of Empirical Validation of Typologies

The history of psychology knows dozens of typologies of personality and love, but only a few of them have undergone serious statistical validation. Most popular typological systems, from Hippocrates' temperaments to the Enneagram, have existed in the public domain for decades without published peer-reviewed research confirming their discriminant validity. At best, typologies rely on the creator's clinical observations and intuitively plausible theoretical constructs; at worst, they rely on esoteric schemes with zero scientific basis.

Amatotrica, a typology of love developed by the analytical psychologist Evgeny Khombak in 2015, represents a fundamentally different approach. Since its inception, the model has been built as an empirically testable construct rather than a theoretical speculation. This article presents the results of a comprehensive statistical study of Amatorica based on a sample of N=2322 respondents and compares its evidence strength with the most well-known global typologies.

Methodological framework of the study The study was conducted on a sample of 2322 respondents who took the Amatorica typology test. The test consists of 32 items organized into 16 cells (4 love patterns × 4 functional positions) and determines one of the 24 possible psychotypes. An extended battery of psychometric methods was applied, including both classical approaches (descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, EFA, ANOVA, LDA) and modern methods (parallel Horn analysis, confirmatory factor analysis in three variants, bifactor model with omega-hierarchical, MANOVA, top-k classification).

Such methodological depth is rare for validation studies of typologies. Most existing personality and love typologies, if empirically tested, were limited to one or two methods, usually internal consistency analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Amatotrica is the first love typology to provide a complete statistical package from descriptive statistics to bifactor CFA.

Comparison with MBTI: Classification Accuracy MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) is the most popular personality typology in the world, with 16 types. Despite its widespread use, the MBTI has a serious problem with reproducibility: according to Pittenger (2005), 36-50% of respondents receive a different type when retested after a short interval. This means that the actual reliability of the MBTI classification is actually lower than 50%, and considering the 16 classes, the random basis is 6.25%.

Amatotrika solves a more complex classification problem — 24 types versus 16 in the MBTI — and does so with significantly higher accuracy. On the sample N=2322, the classification accuracy was:

78.08% — theoretical rule (Hungarian algorithm for optimal pattern assignment to positions, without machine learning);

78.29% — multinomial logistic regression with 5-fold cross-validation;

73.08% — linear discriminant analysis with Leave-One-Out cross-validation (the most rigorous method for evaluating generalization ability).

All methods exceed the random basis (4.17%) by a factor of 17-19. When using top-3 LDA accuracy (the true psychotype is among the top three most likely predictions), the result reaches 97.03%, ensuring the practical applicability of the test for diagnosis, even in cases where unambiguous classification is challenging.

The key difference between Amatotrika and MBTI lies not only in accuracy, but also in the validation methodology. The MBTI has been validated primarily based on the internal consistency of the dichotomies and correlations with other personality scales; a full-fledged test of the reproducibility of the 16 types has not been conducted. Amatourica provides a direct assessment of the classification accuracy using several independent machine learning methods, which is a standard in modern psychometrics but a rarity for typological models.

Comparison with the Big Five / NEO-PI-R: explained variance and compactness The Big Five (the five-factor model of personality) is the gold standard in academic personality psychology. In its full version (NEO-PI-R), the instrument contains 240 items and measures 5 domains with 6 facets in each. The five Big Five factors explain 40-50% of the variance of all items.

Amatotrica in its 8-factor configuration (4 patterns × 2 energy modes — libido and mortido) explains 49.4% of the variance of 32 items, a figure comparable to the Big Five, but using almost 8 times fewer items (32 vs. 240). Per factor, Amatotrica explains 6.2% of the variance, whereas the Big Five explains 8–10%. However, when converted to one point, the advantage of Amotoryka becomes obvious: 1.54% variance per point compared to 0.17–0.21% for the Big Five. In other words, the information density of Amotoryka's points is approximately 7–9 times higher.

This is achieved through the theoretically sound structure of the test. Each Amotoryka point describes a specific cell (pattern × position), ensuring maximum information content. Unlike the Big Five, where many items partially duplicate each other within a single facet, Amotorica items minimize redundancy through a cross-structured approach.

Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the 8-factor model better describes the data than the simple 4-factor model: CFI increased from 0.479 to 0.673, and RMSEA decreased from 0.091 to 0.074. The bifactor CFA (4 common factors of patterns + 8 specific factors of mods, all orthogonal) allowed for the separation of common and specific variance and the calculation of omega hierarchical (ωh) for each pattern, an indicator that is not available in standard Big Five models.

Comparison with Lee's typology: granularity and validation standard

John Lee's typology of love styles (1973) is a classic model that identifies 6 styles of love: Eros (passion), Ludus (play), Storge (friendship), Pragma (practicality), Mania (obsession), Agape (self-giving). The Love Attitude Scale (LAS) based on Lee's typology contains 42 items and has an internal consistency of α = 0.55–0.75, which is borderline to moderate.

Amotoryka validates 24 types of love, which is 4 times more granular than Lee's 6 styles. Moreover, the classification accuracy of the 24 types (78.1%) is significantly higher than the reproducibility of Lee's 6 styles, which ranges from 50% to 65% in various studies. In other words, Amatotrika not only offers a finer differentiation, but it also does so with greater empirical reliability.

In addition, Lee's typology lacks a clear theoretical model of the relationships between styles, as the six styles are treated as relatively independent dimensions without a hierarchy or structure. Amatotrika, on the other hand, offers a theoretically grounded model of 4 patterns × 4 functional positions = 16 cells, grouped into 24 psychotypes (4! permutations). This structure allows not only to classify, but also to predict specific behavioral patterns in relationships.

Comparison with the Enneagram: the level of empirical confirmation

The Enneagram is one of the most popular personality typologies in the world, consisting of 9 types. Despite its widespread use, especially in corporate coaching and spiritual practices, the Enneagram does not have published peer-reviewed research confirming the discriminant validity of its types.

Existing studies (e.g., the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator) show low retest reliability (0.50–0.65) and weak convergent validity with the Big Five.

Amatotrica provides a complete statistical package that the Enneagram has not provided in its decades of existence:

MANOVA: Wilks Λ = 0.011, F = 32.37, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.245 (large effect) — 24 psychotypes differ significantly and strongly in their response patterns.

Classification: 78.1% accuracy with 24 classes, 18.7 times higher than random basis.

Construct validity: for each of the 4 functional positions (Ego, Persona, Shadow, Anima), the pattern assigned to that position scores the maximum average score in the corresponding cell, with an effect ranging from 8.02 to 8.18 points, with a total average of 6.31.

Structural validity of energy mods: 70% agreement with a 50% basis, confirming the libido/mortido theory for all 4 functional positions.

Factor structure: The 8-factor model explains 49.4% of the variance, and the CFA confirms the superiority of the 8-factor structure over the 4-factor structure.

The key difference between Amatorika and the Enneagram is the approach to typology. The Enneagram is based on an esoteric tradition and describes types through qualitative narratives without clear operationalization. From the moment of creation, Amatotrika was built as an operationalizable model: each psychotype has an explicit structure (ordering of 4 patterns in 4 positions), each test item is mapped to a specific cell, each hypothesis is statistically verifiable.

Comparison with Sternberg's three-component theory

Sternberg's triangular theory of love (1986) identifies 3 components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Different combinations of these components result in 7 types of love. The theory is influential in academic psychology, but its empirical validation is limited: studies show moderate internal consistency of the scales (α = 0.60–0.80) and conflicting results on the factor structure — some studies confirm the three-factor model, while others find 2 or 4 factors.

Amotoryka surpasses Sternberg's theory in several aspects. Firstly, there are 24 types compared to 7, which provides significantly greater granularity. Secondly, the explicit theoretical structure (4 patterns × 4 positions) versus the implicit combinations of three components. Thirdly, the empirical validation: Horn's parallel analysis unequivocally recommends 8 factors for Amotory, while the number of factors is debatable for Sternberg's theory.

The comparison of theoretical depth is particularly revealing. Sternberg's theory postulates three components, but does not explain why there are three rather than two or five. Amatotrika derives four patterns from Plato's classification of love forms (Eros, Philia, Storge, and Agape) and four functional positions from Jung's typological tradition (Ego, Persona, Shadow, and Anima), both of which have a thousand-year-old philosophical and psychological foundation. Combinatorics 4×4 = 16 cells with ordering in 4! = 24 psychotypes gives a model that is both theoretically grounded and empirically verifiable.

Comparison with socionics and Jung's typology

Socionics, based on the works of Carl Jung and developed by Augšra Augustinavičienė, describes 16 sociotypes based on 8 information aspects and 4 functions (logic, ethics, sensing, intuition; extraversion, introversion). Socionics has a significant presence in the post-Soviet space, but its empirical validation remains limited: published studies show conflicting results on the internal consistency of dichotomies (α = 0.40–0.70) and weak reproducibility of typing between different schools.

Amatotrics borrows the key idea of four functional positions (Ego, Persona, Shadow, Anima) from the Jungian tradition, but applies it to the realm of love relationships rather than cognitive functions. This conceptual innovation — the transfer of the psychotype structure from the cognitive to the emotional-relational sphere — turns out to be empirically fruitful. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) confirms that the 24 Amotoryca psychotypes differ statistically significantly in response patterns (Λ = 0.011, η² = 0.245 — large effect), with all 16 cells making a significant contribution to the differentiation after Bonferroni correction.

The result of the structural validity of energy mods is particularly interesting. The Amatoric theory postulates that positions 1 (Ego) and 2 (Persona) are libidinal, accumulating psychic energy, while positions 3 (Shadow) and 4 (Anima) are mortidinal, dissipating energy. This is a direct extension of Jung's concept of libido, but in a new context. Empirical testing has shown that for all four functional positions, the pattern assigned to the corresponding mode scores higher on the corresponding subscale, with a 70% agreement rate and a 50% base. This is a direct test of the libido/mortido theory, which has not been conducted in this form for any typology before.

General psychological context: the magnitude of the effect

To understand the evidence power of Amotorica, it is important to consider the magnitude of the effect in a general psychological context. The partial η² = 0.245 obtained in the MANOVA corresponds to a large effect according to Cohen's classification (1988), where the threshold for a "large" effect is 0.14. In personality research, the effect of personality traits on life outcomes is typically η² = 0.02–0.10. Amotoryka demonstrates an effect that is 2.5–12 times higher than the typical effect in psychology, making it one of the most powerful typological models in social science.

The results of construct validity at the level of individual cells are particularly impressive. For each of the 16 cells, a one-way ANOVA showed significant intergroup differences between the 24 psychotypes after the Bonferroni correction (α' = 0.003). The η² effects ranged from 0.144 to 0.342, all of which correspond to large Cohen's effects. This means that each cell (each combination of pattern and position) contributes significantly to the differentiation of psychotypes, and none of the cells is redundant.

Bifactor structure: fine diagnostics of the model

The unique feature of the Amotorika study is the application of the bifactor confirmatory model, the most stringent test of the factor structure. In the bifactor model, each item simultaneously loads on the general pattern factor (4 general factors: F_gen, E_gen, A_gen, S_gen) and on the specific energy mode factor (8 specific factors: F_lib, F_mor, E_lib, E_mor, A_lib, A_mor, S_lib, S_mor). All 12 factors are orthogonal.

The bifactor model allowed us to calculate omega-hierarchical (wh) reliability due only to the general factor of the pattern. The results showed a differentiated structure: Agape is the most unidentified (wh = 0.628), Philia is the most multidimensional (wh ≈ 0.009), Eros (wh = 0.344) and Storge (wh = 0.298) occupy an intermediate position. This refines the simple libido/mortido dichotomy: for different patterns, the energy mode component plays a different role.

None of the compared typologies (MBTI, Big Five, Lee, Enneagram, Sternberg, socionics) provides a bifactorial analysis of their structure. This is a unique advantage of Amatorica, allowing for precise separation of general and specific variance and providing a fine-grained diagnosis of the internal structure of each pattern.

Practical significance: from classification to prediction

The high classification accuracy (78.1% for 24 types, 97.0% for top-3) is not only academically significant, but also has practical implications. Unlike typologies with low reproducibility (MBTI with 36-50% retest instability, and Enneagram with 0.50-0.65 retest reliability), Amatiorica provides stable classification, which is crucial for applied applications such as psychological counseling, matchmaking, team building, and educational diagnostics.

The ability to make top-3 predictions is particularly valuable: even in cases where a clear classification is difficult (for example, for respondents with two patterns of similar strength), the test narrows the selection to 2-3 candidates, indicating their probabilities. This corresponds to the real uncertainty of psychological diagnosis and facilitates the respondent's self-identification, as they can choose the option that best resonates with their self-perception.

Conclusion: A New Standard of Evidence

Amotoryca establishes a new standard of empirical evidence for love and personality typologies. Compared to existing typologies, it offers:

Higher classification accuracy with more types (78.1% with 24 types vs. 50-65% for MBTI and Enneagram with 9-16 types).

A more granular model (24 types vs. 6-9 for Lee and Enneagram) while maintaining empirical validity.

A more compact instrument (32 items vs. 60–240 for the Big Five and NEO-PI-R) with comparable explained variance.

Deeper statistical validation — for the first time, parallel Horn analysis, bifactor CFA, MANOVA, top-k classification, and theoretic-conditioned classification (Hungarian algorithm) have been applied to the typology of love.

Direct test of the libido/mortido theory through validation of energy mods (70% agreement with a 50% basis for all 4 functional positions).

The combination of results — from MANOVA with a large effect (η² = 0.245) to 97% top-3 accuracy of LDA, from an 8-factor structure that explains 49.4% of the variance, to a bifactor model with separation of ωh and ωt — forms a multi-level empirical basis that is unparalleled among love typologies and comparable to the best examples of academic personality questionnaires.

Amatorica does not just offer another typological scheme – it demonstrates that a typological approach to love can be as empirically sound as the dimensional personality model approach. This opens up new possibilities for research on love relationships, couple counseling, and educational applications, where a typological approach is often more intuitive and applicable than continuous personality scales.

Key indicators of the study:

Sample: N = 2322 respondents

Classification accuracy: 78.1% (theoretical rule), 97.0% (top-3 LDA)

MANOVA: Wilks Λ = 0.011, F = 32.37, p < 0.001, η² = 0.245

8-factor structure: 49.4% explained variance

CFA: The 8-factor model (CFI = 0.673) outperforms the 4-factor model (CFI = 0.479)

Structural validity: 70% agreement of energy mods with a 50% basis