Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Modeling Personality vs. Modeling Personalidad: In-the-wild Mobile Data Analysis in Five Countries Suggests Cultural Impact on Personality Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A smartphone-sensing classifier trained on four countries can predict Big Five personality in a fifth at 63–71% accuracy, and adding country-specific training data significantly improves three of the five traits.

desk verdict The new five-country dataset is a useful first step, but the claim that country-specific data improves trait classification is undermined by an unablated country-dummy confound. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04617 v1 pith:H2IT3AN3 submitted 2019-08-13 cs.HC cs.CY

Mohammed Khwaja , Sumer S. Vaid , Sara Zannone , Gabriella M. Harari , A. Aldo Faisal , Aleksandar Matic This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords personalityinferencesmartphonesensingBigFivecross-culturalmobilemachinelearningcountry-specificmodelsfeatureimportance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper seeks to establish that personality models trained on smartphone sensor data do not travel perfectly across countries, but they travel well enough to be useful. Using three weeks of sensing and Big Five self-reports from 166 participants in the UK, Spain, Peru, Colombia, and Chile, the authors train random-forest classifiers on four countries and test them on the fifth; accuracy lands between 63% (Agreeableness) and 71% (Extraversion). They then show that adding the target country's data to training improves Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness by 3, 7, and 3 percentage points, respectively, while Neuroticism and Openness show no gain. If correct, this matters for anyone deploying personality-based personalization across markets: a single global model is plausible, but local data buys a real accuracy edge for some traits. It also gives social scientists a concrete sign that culture shapes how traits are expressed in everyday sensed behavior.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a paired comparison of two random-forest classifiers built from 284 features across eight sensing categories (accelerometer, battery, calls, unlocks, light, location, noise, pedometer). Both predict above/below-median labels for each Big Five trait; the leave-one-country-out classifier is tested on a country it never saw during training, and the leave-one-subset-out classifier is tested on held-out users drawn from the same multi-country pool, with country indicator flags added to the features. The gap between the two isolates the contribution of country-specific data. Recursive feature elimination, repeated random subsampling (about 104 rounds for the cross-country comparison), and trait-by-country feature-importance rankings give the comparison its evidential weight.

What would settle it

Take only participants with complete accelerometer, unlock, light, and battery logs (no imputation), rebalance the five countries on phone model and gender, and rerun the four-country-train/fifth-country-test comparison; if the significant 3–7-percentage-point gains for Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness disappear, the cultural explanation is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that personality inference from phone sensors is partly culture-bound, in a trait-specific way. A classifier trained on four countries and tested on a fifth achieves binary median-split accuracy of 71% for Extraversion, 63% for Agreeableness, 68% for Conscientiousness, 71% for Neuroticism, and 70% for Openness. When the training set also contains data from the test country, accuracy rises significantly by 3 points for Extraversion, 7 for Agreeableness, and 3 for Conscientiousness; Neuroticism and Openness do not improve, indicating those two traits are more robust to cultural context. The authors interpret these results as evidence that the behavioral signatures of personality overlap across countries but are not identical, so models built from culturally diverse data generalize to new countries while still benefiting from country-specific calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phones measured everyone's behavior equally in all five countries; if users in some countries shared less data, or owned different phones, the accuracy differences credited to culture could instead be measurement artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A personality classifier trained on four countries and applied to a fifth can sort users above and below the trait median with 63–71% accuracy, so cross-country deployment is feasible without first collecting local training data.
  • Adding local training data gives statistically significant accuracy gains of 3, 7, and 3 percentage points for Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, while Neuroticism and Openness gain nothing, so the value of local calibration is trait-dependent.
  • Controlling or balancing gender and age in the training set improves prediction by up to 17 percentage points, and gender-separated models predict better still, so demographic composition is as important as country mix.
  • Noise, location, unlock, and accelerometer features are the most predictive categories across countries, whereas call features are less predictive than earlier studies suggested, pointing to where future sensing pipelines should focus.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors leave implicit that the 3–7-point country gain sets an upper bound on what local calibration can buy; a service could test whether a small local sample, rather than a full local model, captures most of that gain.
  • Because weekend features are especially predictive, a data-minimizing design that collects only weekend sensor logs plus a small local calibration sample might retain most of the accuracy at lower privacy cost; this is a direct testable extension of the paper's findings.
  • The country effect may partly reflect infrastructure rather than culture; a replication that matches countries on phone models and data-completeness rates would show how much of the gain is genuinely cultural.
  • If the effect is cultural, region-within-country variation may be detectable too, and leave-one-region-out tests in a single large country would extend the authors' design to sub-national cultures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether mobile-sensing-based personality classifiers trained in one set of countries generalize to a new country, and whether adding country-specific training data improves accuracy. The authors collected smartphone sensor and usage data for three weeks from 166 participants across the UK, Spain, Peru, Colombia, and Chile, and trained Random Forest classifiers for binary Big Five trait splits at the global median. They compare a leave-one-country-out model (Method 1) with a leave-one-subset-out model (Method 2) and report that the latter, which includes country-specific training data, improves accuracy by 3–7% for Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. They also analyze which sensing categories are most predictive per country and test robustness to gender and age balancing.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a useful contribution: it is among the first studies to test cross-country generalization of mobile-sensing personality models, and it provides a multi-country dataset and a candid discussion of limitations. The reported accuracies (63–71% for country-agnostic models, up to 74% with country-specific data) are comparable to prior single-country work, and the paper's emphasis on cultural context is a timely topic. The authors also deserve credit for transparently describing data-loss mechanisms, the imputation approach, and the small per-country sample sizes. However, the main evidence for 'cultural impact' is threatened by a design confound in the comparison between Method 1 and Method 2, which is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, §4.2, §5.1] The comparison between Method 1 and Method 2 conflates 'including country-specific training data' with 'adding country identity features.' Method 2 adds five binary country flags to the feature set, while Method 1 does not; because the classification labels are binary splits at the global median, and Table 3 shows that country trait medians differ (e.g., Neuroticism median is 34.5 in Colombia versus 26 in the UK), the country flags alone can be highly predictive of the label, with no sensor data. The reported 3–7% accuracy improvements for Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness could therefore reflect a country-label shortcut rather than learned cross-cultural differences in behavioral manifestations. The paper should report an ablation of Method 2 with the country flags removed (same train/test splits) and/or a control in which labels are centered within country, to confirm that the improvement survives without the shortcut. As written, the McNemar test only establishes that the two model variants differ, not that the difference is cultural.
  2. [§3.4] It is unclear whether Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) is nested inside each cross-validation fold or performed once on the full dataset before cross-validation. If RFE is applied to the entire dataset, test-fold information leaks into feature selection, which would optimistically bias all reported accuracies in Tables 4–6 and the feature-importance analyses in Figures 2 and 3. The authors should specify the implementation and, if leakage exists, re-run the analysis with feature selection performed inside each training fold; a nested-CV ablation would settle the point.
  3. [§3.2] The 30% missing-data exclusion threshold was chosen by exploring model accuracy as a function of data availability, i.e., by inspecting the outcome variable; this risks selecting a subsample that artificially inflates accuracy. In addition, the paper does not report post-exclusion missingness by country, even though data gaps arose from sensor-specific opt-outs and phone-model differences (e.g., Pedometer present in only 53% of phones). If missingness or hardware characteristics differ systematically by country, the between-country differences in model performance and in feature distributions (Figures 2 and 3) could reflect measurement artifacts rather than cultural differences in behavior. Please report per-country data availability after imputation and a sensitivity analysis around the exclusion threshold.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.1 vs. Table 4] The text states the country-agnostic model achieved 71% accuracy for Neuroticism, but Table 4 reports 72%; please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [§6, Table 1] The Limitations section says 'our per country samples do not exceed N=21', but Table 1 shows UK N=27, Spain N=69, Peru N=25, and Chile N=24; the phrasing should read 'are as low as 21' or similar.
  3. [§3.4 and §4.4] The text in §3.4 (RQ2) states 'We intentionally opted not to explore single country models... due to a relatively low number of participants,' yet §4.4 trains and analyzes a separate model for each country to identify top predictive features; please clarify the distinction between these two statements.
  4. [Tables 4–6] No confidence intervals or other uncertainty measures are reported for the accuracy estimates; for test subsets as small as 21–27 participants, a 3% difference in accuracy may be within sampling variability, so adding binomial or bootstrap intervals would help interpret the magnitude of the reported improvements.
  5. [Figure 3] The figure labels contain an odd notation 'X 102' that is difficult to read; please reformat the axis labels for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the accuracy claims rest on held-out predictions; the country-dummy design is a validity confound, not a definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an empirical accuracy comparison on held-out test splits. Method 1 (leave-one-country-out) excludes the test country's data, while Method 2 (leave-one-subset-out) includes random held-out subsets and adds five binary country flags as features (Section 3.4). The target labels are self-reported Big Five scores binarized at the global median (Section 4.1), not quantities constructed from the sensor features or from the country flags, and the reported accuracies are computed on participants not used in training. No parameter is fitted to the claimed 3-7% improvement, and the paper's self-citations (refs [36,37]) are contextual related-work mentions about wellbeing recommendations and weekend data minimization, not load-bearing premises of the classification result. The country-dummy design is a genuine threat to the 'cultural impact' interpretation: because country-level trait medians differ (e.g., Neuroticism median 34.5 in Colombia vs. 26 in the UK, Table 3), the flags could serve as a shortcut to the global-median split, and the paper reports no ablation removing them. However, that is an empirical validity concern about what the model learned, not a case where the prediction reduces by construction to its inputs. The paper's own limitations section also acknowledges small per-country samples and difficulty rejecting data-artifact explanations (Section 6). Therefore no circular step meets the required standard of exhibiting a definitional or fitted-input reduction; score 2 reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new theoretical entities are introduced. The central empirical claims rest on free parameters (missing-data threshold, sub-sampling sizes, iteration counts) and on domain assumptions about trait validity, sensor-behavior links, imputation unbiasedness, and the absence of feature-selection leakage. These assumptions are plausible but not independently verified.

free parameters (4)
  • Missing data threshold = 30%
    Users with more than 30% uncomputable features were excluded; the threshold was selected by exploring model accuracy as a function of participants and data availability (Section 3.2), a post-hoc selection that can bias the dataset.
  • Spanish sub-sample size n = 21 (size of smallest country, Colombia)
    In leave-one-country-out, Spain (N=69) was sub-sampled to n=21 to balance countries; n is tied to the smallest country's sample size and is a design choice, not a fitted parameter.
  • Number of cross-validation iterations = 104 (RQ1), 15 (RQ2), 10 (balancing)
    Iteration counts were set by a rule of thumb (square root of instances) rather than by power analysis; arbitrary but not central to the claim.
  • RFE-selected feature count = Not reported
    Recursive Feature Elimination reduces 284 features, but the final number per model is not stated, making the model complexity a hidden free parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Big Five traits are stable, universal personality constructs valid across cultures.
    The paper relies on the cross-cultural validity of the Big Five (Section 2.2, citing [42, 51]) to interpret accuracy differences as cultural impact rather than construct variance.
  • domain assumption Smartphone sensor data and phone usage logs are valid behavioral indicators of personality traits.
    Core to the whole method; features from location, noise, unlocks, accelerometer are treated as behavioral manifestations (Sections 1 and 3.3).
  • domain assumption The 50-item IPIP Big Five inventory yields reliable self-report scores.
    Section 4.1 reports internal reliability (alpha > 0.7); the median split depends on these scores being meaningful.
  • domain assumption Missing sensor data can be imputed without biasing classification.
    Section 3.2: 15-47% missing per category; they discard and impute with fancyimpute. If missingness correlates with country or personality, accuracy differences may be artifactual.
  • domain assumption Random Forest with RFE can produce generalizable models from 166 samples and 284 features.
    The paper does not demonstrate that feature selection is nested within cross-validation; if RFE is applied on the full dataset before splitting, accuracy estimates are optimistically biased (Section 3.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Personality vs. Modeling Personalidad: In-the-wild Mobile Data Analysis in Five Countries Suggests Cultural Impact on Personality Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2IT3AN3

@misc{pith2026190804617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Personality vs. Modeling Personalidad: In-the-wild Mobile Data Analysis in Five Countries Suggests Cultural Impact on Personality Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2IT3AN3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04617}
}
read the original abstract

Sensor data collected from smartphones provides the possibility to passively infer a user's personality traits. Such models can be used to enable technology personalization, while contributing to our substantive understanding of how human behavior manifests in daily life. A significant challenge in personality modeling involves improving the accuracy of personality inferences, however, research has yet to assess and consider the cultural impact of users' country of residence on model replicability. We collected mobile sensing data and self-reported Big Five traits from 166 participants (54 women and 112 men) recruited in five different countries (UK, Spain, Colombia, Peru, and Chile) for 3 weeks. We developed machine learning based personality models using culturally diverse datasets -- representing different countries -- and we show that such models can achieve state-of-the-art accuracy when tested in new countries, ranging from 63% (Agreeableness) to 71% (Extraversion) of classification accuracy. Our results indicate that using country-specific datasets can improve the classification accuracy between 3% and 7% for Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. We show that these findings hold regardless of gender and age balance in the dataset. Interestingly, using gender- or age- balanced datasets as well as gender-separated datasets improve trait prediction by up to 17%. We unpack differences in personality models across the five countries, highlight the most predictive data categories (location, noise, unlocks, accelerometer), and provide takeaways to technologists and social scientists interested in passive personality assessment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04617 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow Chart representing the methodology of this study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top Predictive Data Categories for each Personality Trait within each dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized Frequency distributions of top predictive features of most significant data categories per country [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Icek Ajzen. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 20. Elsevier, 1–63

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    Gordon Willard Allport. 1937. Personality: A psychological interpretation. (1937)

    work page 1937

  3. [3]

    Ligia Batrinca, Bruno Lepri, Nadia Mana, and Fabio Pianesi. 2012. Multimodal recognition of personality traits in human-computer collaborative tasks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction . ACM, 39–46

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Anabela Berenguer, Jorge Goncalves, Simo Hosio, Denzil Ferreira, Theodoros Anagnostopoulos, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. Are Smartphones Ubiquitous?: An in-depth survey of smartphone adoption by seniors. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine 6, 1 (2017), 104–110

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Luca Canzian and Mirco Musolesi. 2015. Trajectories of depression: unobtrusive monitoring of depressive states by means of smartphone mobility traces analysis. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing . ACM, 1293–1304

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Cagatay Catal, Min Song, Can Muratli, Erin Hea-Jin Kim, Mestan Ali Tosuner, and Yusuf Kayikci. 2017. Cross-Cultural Personality Prediction based on Twitter Data. Journal of Software 12, 11 (2017), 882–892

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Raymond B Cattell. 1957. Personality and motivation structure and measurement. (1957)

    work page 1957

  8. [8]

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . ACM, 785–794

    work page 2016

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Gokul Chittaranjan, Jan Blom, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2011. Who’s who with big-five: Analyzing and classifying personality traits with smartphones. In Wearable Computers (ISWC), 2011 15th Annual International Symposium on . IEEE, 29–36

    2011

  2. [10]

    Gokul Chittaranjan, Jan Blom, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2013. Mining large-scale smartphone data for personality studies. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 17, 3 (2013), 433–450

    2013

  3. [11]

    A Timothy Church. 2016. Personality traits across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology 8 (2016), 22–30

    2016

  4. [12]

    A Timothy Church, Marcia S Katigbak, Lilia G Miramontes, Alicia M Del Prado, and Helena F Cabrera. 2007. Culture and the behavioural manifestations of traits: An application of the act frequency approach. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association ...

    2007

  5. [13]

    A Timothy Church, Marcia S Katigbak, Jose Alberto S Reyes, Maria Guadalupe C Salanga, Lilia A Miramontes, and Nerissa B Adams

  6. [14]

    C Robert Cloninger and Ada H Zohar. 2011. Personality and the perception of health and happiness. Journal of affective disorders 128, 1-2 (2011), 24–32

    2011

  7. [15]

    Paul T Costa Jr, Antonio Terracciano, and Robert R McCrae. 2001. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social psychology 81, 2 (2001), 322

    2001

  8. [16]

    Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye, Jordi Quoidbach, Florent Robic, and Alex Sandy Pentland. 2013. Predicting personality using novel mobile phone-based metrics. In International conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling, and prediction . Springer, 48–55

    2013

  9. [17]

    Rodrigo de Oliveira, Mauro Cherubini, and Nuria Oliver. 2013. Influence of personality on satisfaction with mobile phone services. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 20, 2 (2013), 10

    2013

  10. [18]

    Rodrigo de Oliveira, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Pedro Concejero Cerezo, Ana Armenta Lopez de Vicuña, and Nuria Oliver. 2011. Towards a psychographic user model from mobile phone usage. In CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Proc. ACM Interact. M...

    2011

  11. [19]

    Bruce Ferwerda and Marko Tkalcic. 2018. Predicting Users’ Personality from Instagram Pictures: Using Visual and/or Content Features?. In The 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, Singapore (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Bruce Ferwerda and Marko Tkalcic. 2018. You Are What You Post: What the Content of Instagram Pictures Tells About UsersâĂŽÃĎÃť Personality. In The 23rd International on Intelligent User Interfaces

    2018

  13. [21]

    Bruce Ferwerda, Emily Yang, Markus Schedl, and Marko Tkalcic. 2015. Personality traits predict music taxonomy preferences. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, 2241–2246

    2015

  14. [22]

    Russell G Foster and Till Roenneberg. 2008. Human responses to the geophysical daily, annual and lunar cycles. Current biology 18, 17 (2008), R784–R794

    2008

  15. [23]

    Lewis R Goldberg. 1993. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American psychologist 48, 1 (1993), 26

    1993

  16. [24]

    Lewis R Goldberg, John A Johnson, Herbert W Eber, Robert Hogan, Michael C Ashton, C Robert Cloninger, and Harrison G Gough. 2006. The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in personality 40, 1 (2006), 84–96

    2006

  17. [25]

    Alan J Gow, Martha C Whiteman, Alison Pattie, and Ian J Deary. 2005. Goldberg’s ’IPIP’ Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences 39, 2 (2005), 317–329

    2005

  18. [26]

    Michael Gurven, Christopher Von Rueden, Maxim Massenkoff, Hillard Kaplan, and Marino Lero Vie. 2013. How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of personality and social psychology...

    2013

  19. [27]

    Sajanee Halko and Julie A Kientz. 2010. Personality and persuasive technology: an exploratory study on health-promoting mobile applications. In International conference on persuasive technology . Springer, 150–161

    2010

  20. [28]

    Margeret Hall and Simon Caton. 2017. Am I who I say I am? Unobtrusive self-representation and personality recognition on Facebook. PloS one 12, 9 (2017), e0184417

    2017

  21. [29]

    Gabriella M Harari, Nicholas D Lane, Rui Wang, Benjamin S Crosier, Andrew T Campbell, and Samuel D Gosling. 2016. Using smartphones to collect behavioral data in psychological science: opportunities, practical considerations, and challenges. Perspectives on Psychological Scien...

    2016

  22. [30]

    Gabriella M Harari, Sandrine R Müller, Min SH Aung, and Peter J Rentfrow. 2017. Smartphone sensing methods for studying behavior in everyday life. Current opinion in behavioral sciences 18 (2017), 83–90

    2017

  23. [31]

    Alexei V Ivanov, Giuseppe Riccardi, Adam J Sporka, and Jakub Franc. 2011. Recognition of personality traits from human spoken conversations. In Twelfth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association

    2011

  24. [32]

    Yuan Jia, Bin Xu, Yamini Karanam, and Stephen Voida. 2016. Personality-targeted gamification: a survey study on personality traits and motivational affordances. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, 2001–2013

    2016

  25. [33]

    Oliver P John, Laura P Naumann, and Christopher J Soto. 2008. Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. Handbook of personality: Theory and research 3, 2 (2008), 114–158

    2008

  26. [34]

    Oliver P John, Sanjay Srivastava, et al. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research 2, 1999 (1999), 102–138

    1999

  27. [35]

    John A Johnson. 2014. Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality 51 (2014), 78–89

    2014

  28. [36]

    Aldo Faisal, and Aleksandar Matic

    Mohammed Khwaja, Miquel Ferrer, Jesus Omana Iglesias, A. Aldo Faisal, and Aleksandar Matic. 2019. Aligning Daily Activities with Personality: Towards A Recommender System for Improving Wellbeing. InProceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM

    2019

  29. [37]

    Mohammed Khwaja and Aleksandar Matic. 2019. Personality is Revealed During Weekends: Towards Data Minimisation for Smartphone Based Personality Classification. In Proceedings of the 17th IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction . Springer

    2019

  30. [38]

    Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell, and Thore Graepel. 2013. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2013), 201218772

    2013

  31. [39]

    Nicholas D Lane, Emiliano Miluzzo, Hong Lu, Daniel Peebles, Tanzeem Choudhury, and Andrew T Campbell. 2010. A survey of mobile phone sensing. IEEE Communications magazine 48, 9 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Sandra C Matz, Michal Kosinski, Gideon Nave, and David J Stillwell. 2017. Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 114, 48 (2017), 12714–12719

    2017

  33. [41]

    Robert R McCrae. 2002. Cross-cultural research on the five-factor model of personality. Online readings in psychology and culture 4, 4 (2002), 1

    2002

  34. [42]

    Robert R McCrae and Paul T Costa Jr. 1997. Personality trait structure as a human universal. American psychologist 52, 5 (1997), 509

    1997

  35. [43]

    Atsunori Minamikawa and Hiroyuki Yokoyama. 2011. Blog tells what kind of personality you have: egogram estimation from Japanese weblog. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work . ACM, 217–220

    2011

  36. [44]

    Bjarke Mønsted, Anders Mollgaard, and Joachim Mathiesen. 2018. Phone-based metric as a predictor for basic personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality 74 (2018), 16–22. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 3, No. 3, Article 88. Publication dat...

    2018

  37. [45]

    John B Nezlek, Astrid Schütz, Michela Schröder-Abé, and C Veronica Smith. 2011. A cross-cultural study of relationships between daily social interaction and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of personality 79, 4 (2011), 811–840

    2011

  38. [46]

    Daniel Olguın Olguın, Peter A Gloor, and Alex Sandy Pentland. 2009. Capturing individual and group behavior with wearable sensors. In Proceedings of the 2009 aaai spring symposium on human behavior modeling, SSS , Vol. 9

    2009

  39. [47]

    Souneil Park, Aleksandar Matic, Kamini Garg, and Nuria Oliver. 2018. When Simpler Data Does Not Imply Less Information: A Study of User Profiling Scenarios With Constrained View of Mobile HTTP (S) Traffic. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 12, 2 (2018), 9

    2018

  40. [48]

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of machine learning research 12, Oct (2011), ...

    2011

  41. [49]

    Douglas A Raynor and Heidi Levine. 2009. Associations between the five-factor model of personality and health behaviors among college students. Journal of American College Health 58, 1 (2009), 73–82

    2009

  42. [50]

    Soumen Roy, Utpal Roy, and DD Sinha. 2019. The probability of predicting personality traits by the way user types on touch screen. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 15, 1 (2019), 27–34

    2019

  43. [51]

    David P Schmitt, Jüri Allik, Robert R McCrae, and Verónica Benet-Martínez. 2007. The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of cross-cultural psychology 38, 2 (2007), 173–212

    2007

  44. [52]

    Marcin Skowron, Marko Tkalčič, Bruce Ferwerda, and Markus Schedl. 2016. Fusing social media cues: personality prediction from twitter and instagram. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference companion on world wide web . International World Wide Web Conferences Steer...

    2016

  45. [53]

    Jacopo Staiano, Bruno Lepri, Nadav Aharony, Fabio Pianesi, Nicu Sebe, and Alex Pentland. 2012. Friends don’t lie: inferring personality traits from social network structure. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on ubiquitous computing . ACM, 321–330

    2012

  46. [54]

    Shoshannah Tekofsky, Jaap Van Den Herik, Pieter Spronck, and Aske Plaat. 2013. Psyops: Personality assessment through gaming behavior. In In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games . Citeseer

    2013

  47. [55]

    Catherine Tong, Gabriella M Harari, Angela Chieh, Otmane Bellahsen, Matthieu Vegreville, Eva Roitmann, and Nicholas D Lane

  48. [56]

    Alessandro Vinciarelli and Gelareh Mohammadi. 2014. A survey of personality computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 5, 3 (2014), 273–291

    2014

  49. [57]

    Rui Wang, Fanglin Chen, Zhenyu Chen, Tianxing Li, Gabriella Harari, Stefanie Tignor, Xia Zhou, Dror Ben-Zeev, and Andrew T Campbell

  50. [58]

    Weichen Wang, Gabriella M Harari, Rui Wang, Sandrine R Müller, Shayan Mirjafari, Kizito Masaba, and Andrew T Campbell. 2018. Sensing Behavioral Change over Time: Using Within-Person Variability Features from Mobile Sensing to Predict Personality Traits. Proceedings of the ACM ...

    2018

  51. [59]

    Wu Youyou, Michal Kosinski, and David Stillwell. 2015. Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 4 (2015), 1036–1040. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 3, No....

    2015

  52. [2008]

    Journal of Research in Personality 42, 5 (2008), 1199–1215

    Prediction and cross-situational consistency of daily behavior across cultures: Testing trait and cultural psychology perspectives. Journal of Research in Personality 42, 5 (2008), 1199–1215

    2008

  53. [2014]

    In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing

    StudentLife: assessing mental health, academic performance and behavioral trends of college students using smartphones. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing . ACM, 3–14

    2014

  54. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services

    Inference of Big-Five Personality Using Large-scale Networked Mobile and Appliance Data. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services . ACM, 530–530

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.