Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#19 of 43,966)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
515 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, January 2015
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1418680112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wu Youyou, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell, Youyou W, Kosinski M, Stillwell D

Abstract

Judging others' personalities is an essential skill in successful social living, as personality is a key driver behind people's interactions, behaviors, and emotions. Although accurate personality judgments stem from social-cognitive skills, developments in machine learning show that computer models can also make valid judgments. This study compares the accuracy of human and computer-based personality judgments, using a sample of 86,220 volunteers who completed a 100-item personality questionnaire. We show that (i) computer predictions based on a generic digital footprint (Facebook Likes) are more accurate (r = 0.56) than those made by the participants' Facebook friends using a personality questionnaire (r = 0.49); (ii) computer models show higher interjudge agreement; and (iii) computer personality judgments have higher external validity when predicting life outcomes such as substance use, political attitudes, and physical health; for some outcomes, they even outperform the self-rated personality scores. Computers outpacing humans in personality judgment presents significant opportunities and challenges in the areas of psychological assessment, marketing, and privacy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 986 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 515 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 23 4%
United Kingdom 17 3%
Germany 11 2%
Australia 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Austria 4 <1%
Finland 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Other 22 4%
Unknown 421 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 141 27%
Researcher 86 17%
Student > Master 84 16%
Student > Bachelor 40 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 37 7%
Other 127 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 167 32%
Computer Science 117 23%
Social Sciences 69 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 27 5%
Other 99 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1741. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#342
of 7,424,936 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#19
of 43,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18
of 234,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#2
of 945 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,424,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 43,966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 945 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.