Computational Approaches for Personality Prediction

Bruno Lepri; Fabio Pianesi

doi:10.1017/9781316676202.013

13 - Computational Approaches for Personality Prediction

from Part II - Machine Analysis of Social Signals

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2017

Bruno Lepri and

Fabio Pianesi

Edited by

Judee K. Burgoon ,

Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann ,

Maja Pantic and

Alessandro Vinciarelli

Show author details

Bruno Lepri: Affiliation:
Bruno Kessler Foundation
Fabio Pianesi: Affiliation:
Bruno Kessler Foundation
Judee K. Burgoon: Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann: Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Maja Pantic: Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Alessandro Vinciarelli: Affiliation:
University of Glasgow

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

In everyday life, people usually describe others as being more or less talkative or sociable, more or less angry or vulnerable to stress, more or less planful or behaviorally controlled. Moreover, people exploit these descriptors in their everyday life to explain and/or predict others’ behavior, attaching them to well-known as well as to new acquaintances. In all generality, the attribution of stable personality characteristics to others and their usage to predict and explain their behavior is a fundamental characteristics of human naive psychology (Andrews, 2008).

As agents that in increasingly many and varied ways participate in and affect the lives of humans, computers need to explain and predict their human parties’ behavior by, for example, deploying some kind of naive folk-psychology in which the understanding of people's personality can reasonably be expected to play a role. In this chapter, we address some of the issues that attempts at endowing machines with the capability of predicting people's personality traits.

Scientific psychology has developed a view of personality as a higher-level abstraction encompassing traits, sets of stable dispositions toward action, belief, and attitude formation. Personality traits differ across individuals, are relatively stable over time, and influence behavior. Between-individual differences in behavior, belief, and attitude can therefore be captured in terms of the dispositions/personality traits that are specific to each individual, in this way providing a powerful descriptive and predictive tool that has been widely exploited by, for example, clinical and social psychology, educational psychology, and organizational studies.

The search for personality traits has been often pursued by means of factor-analytic studies applied to lists of trait adjectives, an approach based on the lexical hypothesis (Allport & Odbert, 1936), which maintains that the most relevant individual differences are encoded into the language, and the more important the difference, the more likely it is to be expressed as a single word.

Type: Chapter
Information: Social Signal Processing , pp. 168 - 182

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676202.013 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allport, G.W. & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1–171.Google Scholar

Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In M. P., Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 32, pp. 201–271). San Diego: Academic Press.

Ambady, N. & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274.Google Scholar

André, E., Klense, M., Gebhard, P., Allen, S., & Rist, T. (1999). Integrating models of personality and emotions into lifelike characters. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Affect in Interaction – Towards a New Generation of Interfaces (pp. 136–149).

Andrews, K. (2008). It's in your nature: A pluralistic folk psychology. Synthese, 165(1), 13–29.Google Scholar

Batrinca, L. M., Lepri, B., Mana, N., & Pianesi, F. (2012). Multimodal recognition of personality traits in human–computer collaborative tasks. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI'12).

Batrinca, L.M., Mana, N., Lepri, B., Pianesi, F., & Sebe, N. (2011). Please, tell me about yourself: Automatic personality assessment using short self-presentations. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI '11), pp. 255–262.

Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.Google Scholar

Berlingerio, M., Coscia, M., Giannotti, F., Monreale, A., & Pedreschi, D. (2013). Multidimensional networks: Foundations of structural analysis. World Wide Web, 16, 567.Google Scholar

Borgatti, S. P. & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.Google Scholar

Borkenau, P. & Liebler, A. (1992). Traits inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645–657.Google Scholar

Borkenau, P. & Liebler, A. (1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self-ratings, partner ratings and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 546–553.Google Scholar

Breiman, L. (2001). Random forest. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.Google Scholar

Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and Motivation: Structure and Measurement. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Chittaranjan, G., Blom, J., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2011). Who's who with Big-Five: Analyzing and classifying personality traits with smartphones. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Wearable Computing (ISWC 2011).

Chittaranjan, G., Blom, J., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2013). Mining large-scale smartphone data for personality studies. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(3), 433–450.Google Scholar

Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways why five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665.Google Scholar

Dabbs, J. M. & Bernieri, F. J. (1999). Judging personality from thin slices. Unpublished data. University of Toledo.

De Montjoye, Y. A., Quoidbach, J., Robic, F., & Pentland, A. (2013). Predicting personality using novel mobile phone-based metrics. In Proceedings of Social BP (pp. 48–55).

DeNeve, K. M. & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229.Google Scholar

Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027.Google Scholar

Friggeri, A., Lambiotte, R., Kosinski, M., & Fleury, E. (2012). Psychological aspects of social communities. In Proceedings of IEEE Social Computing (SocialCom 2012).

Funder, D. C. & Sneed, C. D. (1993). Behavioral manifestations of personality: An ecological approach to judgmental accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 479–490.Google Scholar

Furnham, A. & Fudge, C. (2008). The Five Factor model of personality and sales performance. Journal of Individual Differences, 29(1), 11–16.Google Scholar

Goren-Bar, D., Graziola, I., Pianesi, F., & Zancanaro, M. (2006). Influence of personality factors on visitors' attitudes towards adaptivity dimensions for mobile museum guides. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, 16(1), 31–62.Google Scholar

Grucza, R. A. & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 167–187.Google Scholar

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504.Google Scholar

Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.Google Scholar

Janis, L. (1954). Personality correlates of susceptibility to persuasion. Journal of Personality, 22(4), 504–518.Google Scholar

John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A., Pervin & O. P., John (Eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.Google Scholar

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541.Google Scholar

Kalimeri, K., Lepri, B., & Pianesi, A. (2013). Going beyond traits: Multimodal recognition of personality states in the wild. In Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (pp. 27–34).

Kalish, Y. & Robins, G. (2006). Psychological predisposition and network structure: The relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social Networks, 28, 56–84.Google Scholar

Klein, K. J., Lim, B. C., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of network centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 952–963.Google Scholar

Lepri, B., Staiano, J., Rigato, G., et al. (2012). The SocioMetric Badges Corpus: A multilevel behavioral dataset for social behavior in complex organizations. In Proceedings of IEEE Social Computing (SocialCom 2012).

Lepri, B., Subramanian, R., Kalimeri, K., et al. (2010). Employing social gaze and speaking activity for automatic determination of the Extraversion trait. In Proceedings of International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI 2010).

Lepri, B., Subramanian, R., Kalimeri, K., et al. (2012). Connecting meeting behavior with Extraversion – A systematic study. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(4), 443–455.Google Scholar

Mairesse, F., Walker, W. A., Mehl, M. R., & Moore, R. K. (2007). Using linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 30, 457–500.Google Scholar

Mohammadi, G. & Vinciarelli, A. (2012). Automatic personality perception: Prediction of trait attribution based on prosodic features. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(3), 273– 284.Google Scholar

Murray, H. G., Rushton, J. P., & Paunonen, S. V. (1990). Teacher personality traits and student instructional ratings in six types of university courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 250–261.Google Scholar

Olguin Olguin, D.,Waber, B., Kim, T., et al. (2009). Sensible organizations: Technology for automatically measuring organizational behavior. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 39(1), 43–55 Google Scholar

Peabody, D. & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personalitytrait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552–567.Google Scholar

Pianesi, F., Mana, N., Cappelletti, A., Lepri, B., & Zancanaro, M. (2008). Multimodal recognition of personality traits in social interactions. In Proceedings of ACM-ICMI '08.

Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G. B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Extraverts have larger social network layers but do not feel emotionally closer to individuals at any layer. Journal of Individual Differences, 32(3), 161–169.Google Scholar

Roberts, S. G. B., Wilson, R., Fedurek, P., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Individual differences and personal social network size and structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 954–964.Google Scholar

Scherer, K. R. (1978). Inference rules in personality attribution from voice quality: The loud voice of extraversion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 467–487.Google Scholar

Staiano, J., Lepri, B., Aharony, N., et al. (2012). Friends don't lie – inferring personality traits from social network structure. Proceedings of UbiComp 2012.

Tapus, A., Tapus, C., & Mataric, M. (2008). User-robot personality matching and robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. Intelligent Service Robotics Journal(special issue on multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics), 1(2), 169–183.Google Scholar

Zen, G., Lepri, B., Ricci, E., & Lanz, O. (2010). Space speaks: Towards socially and personality aware visual surveillance. In Proceedings ofWorkshop on Multimodal Pervasive Video Analysis (MPVA 2010), in conjunction with ACM Multimedia.

Zhou, X. & Conati, C. (2003). Inferring user goals from personality and behavior in a causal model of user affect. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'03).

Asendorpf, J. B. & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–1544.Google Scholar

Cassell, J. & Bickmore, T. (2003). Negotiated collusion: Modeling social language and its relationship effects in intelligent agents. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 13, 89–132.Google Scholar

Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481–504.Google Scholar

Komarraju, M. & Karau, S. J. (2005). The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and academic motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 557–567.Google Scholar

Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1965). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28.Google Scholar

Sigurdsson, J. F. (1991). Computer experience, attitudes toward computers and personality characteristics in psychology undergraduates. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(6), 617– 624.Google Scholar

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.Google Scholar

Book contents

13 - Computational Approaches for Personality Prediction

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive