skip to main content
10.1145/3018661.3018717acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Beyond the Words: Predicting User Personality from Heterogeneous Information

Published:02 February 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

An incisive understanding of user personality is not only essential to many scientific disciplines, but also has a profound business impact on practical applications such as digital marketing, personalized recommendation, mental diagnosis, and human resources management. Previous studies have demonstrated that language usage in social media is effective in personality prediction. However, except for single language features, a less researched direction is how to leverage the heterogeneous information on social media to have a better understanding of user personality. In this paper, we propose a Heterogeneous Information Ensemble framework, called HIE, to predict users' personality traits by integrating heterogeneous information including self-language usage, avatar, emoticon, and responsive patterns. In our framework, to improve the performance of personality prediction, we have designed different strategies extracting semantic representations to fully leverage heterogeneous information on social media. We evaluate our methods with extensive experiments based on a real-world data covering both personality survey results and social media usage from thousands of volunteers. The results reveal that our approaches significantly outperform several widely adopted state-of-the-art baseline methods. To figure out the utility of HIE in a real-world interactive setting, we also present DiPsy, a personalized chatbot to predict user personality through heterogeneous information in digital traces and conversation logs.

References

  1. M. R. Barrick and M. K. Mount. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1):1--26, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. V. Benet-Martinez and O. P. John. Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the big five in spanish and english. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(3):729, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. K. Bessière, A. F. Seay, and S. Kiesler. The ideal elf: Identity exploration in world of warcraft. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(4):530--535, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. P. T. Costa and R. R. MacCrae. Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. P. T. Costa and R. R. McCrae. Neo Pi-R. Psychological assessment resources, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. R. A. Dunn and R. E. Guadagno. My avatar and me--gender and personality predictors of avatar-self discrepancy. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1):97--106, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. P. Ekman. An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & emotion, 6(3-4):169--200, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J. K. Ford. Brands laid bare: Using market research for evidence-based brand management. John Wiley & Sons, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. L. R. Goldberg, J. A. Johnson, H. W. Eber, R. Hogan, M. C. Ashton, C. R. Cloninger, and H. G. Gough. The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in personality, 40(1):84--96, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. L. Gou, M. X. Zhou, and H. Yang. Knowme and shareme: understanding automatically discovered personality traits from social media and user sharing preferences. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 955--964. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03385, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. O. P. John, E. M. Donahue, and R. L. Kentle. The big five inventory-versions 4a and 54, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. O. P. John, L. P. Naumann, and C. J. Soto. Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3:114--158, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Y. Kim. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Kosinski, D. Stillwell, and T. Graepel. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15):5802--5805, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. W. Mischel, Y. Shoda, R. E. Smith, and F. W. Mischel. Introduction to personality. University of Phoenix: A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. W. Pennebaker, M. E. Francis, and R. J. Booth. Linguistic inquiry and word count: Liwc 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 71:2001, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Piazza and J. M. Bering. Evolutionary cyber-psychology: Applying an evolutionary framework to internet behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6):1258--1269, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. H. A. Schwartz, J. C. Eichstaedt, M. L. Kern, L. Dziurzynski, S. M. Ramones, M. Agrawal, A. Shah, M. Kosinski, D. Stillwell, M. E. Seligman, et al. Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PloS one, 8(9):e73791, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Y. R. Tausczik and J. W. Pennebaker. The psychological meaning of words: Liwc and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology, 29(1):24--54, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. D. H. Wolpert. Stacked generalization. Neural networks, 5(2):241--259, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. T. Yarkoni. Personality in 100,000 words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers. Journal of research in personality, 44(3):363--373, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. W. Youyou, M. Kosinski, and D. Stillwell. Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(4):1036--1040, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Z. Zhao, H. Lu, D. Cai, X. He, and Y. Zhuang. User preference learning for online social recommendation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Z. Zhao, Q. Yang, D. Cai, X. He, and Y. Zhuang. Expert finding for community-based question answering via ranking metric network learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Beyond the Words: Predicting User Personality from Heterogeneous Information

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        WSDM '17: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
        February 2017
        868 pages
        ISBN:9781450346757
        DOI:10.1145/3018661

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 2 February 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        WSDM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate80of505submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate498of2,863submissions,17%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader