{"id":83,"date":"2015-01-14T19:59:16","date_gmt":"2015-01-14T19:59:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/?p=83"},"modified":"2015-01-14T20:05:34","modified_gmt":"2015-01-14T20:05:34","slug":"can-a-computer-judge-your-personality-better-than-your-friends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/can-a-computer-judge-your-personality-better-than-your-friends\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a Computer Judge Your Personality Better than Your Friends?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday, as I was standing in line in my campus bookstore, I heard someone on the radio talk about a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing that a computer algorithm, relying only on the things you &#8220;Like&#8221; on Facebook, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pnas.org\/content\/early\/2015\/01\/07\/1418680112.abstract\">makes more accurate judgments of your personality than your friends<\/a>. If you also heard about this study, you probably did not react the way I did yesterday. Having been a reviewer on this study, I had already read the paper. So my reaction was, &#8220;Yeah, the study did show that, but it isn&#8217;t as simple as this report makes it sound.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>So what does the study show? I personally was intrigued by three things.<\/p>\n<p>1) Clearly there is a sexy news story in saying that computers make better judgments than humans. And that is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wired.com\/2015\/01\/facebook-personality-test\/\">precisely how<\/a> this study <a href=\"http:\/\/news.stanford.edu\/news\/2015\/january\/personality-computer-knows-011215.html\">has been discussed<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.yahoo.com\/parenting\/study-says-facebook-may-understand-you-better-than-108012559672.html\">so far<\/a>.[1] However, the data show that self-other agreement with human judges was about <em>r <\/em>= .49 (across all Big 5 traits) while self-other agreement with computer-based judgments was about <em>r <\/em>= .56. Yes, these differences are statistically significant and NO we shouldn&#8217;t care that they are statistically significant. What these effectively mean is that if you judge yourself to be above average (median) on a trait, your friends are likely to guess that you are above average 74.5% of the time, while the computer algorithm guesses correctly 78% of the time. This is a real difference, so I don&#8217;t want to downplay it, but it is important not to oversell it either.<\/p>\n<p>2) To me, and I noted this in my review, one of the most interesting findings from this paper was the fact that both computer-based personality judgments from Facebook Likes *AND* peer judgments of personality predicted self-reports of personality largely independently of each other. This is discussed on p. 3 of the paper in the first full paragraph under (the beautiful looking) Figure 2. You can also see the results for yourself in Supplemental Table 2 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pnas.org\/content\/suppl\/2015\/01\/07\/1418680112.DCSupplemental\/pnas.201418680SI.pdf#nameddest=ST1\">here<\/a>. Average self-other agreement with human judgments was <em>r <\/em>= .42 when controlling for computer judgments. Likewise, average self-other agreement with computer judgments was <em>r <\/em>= .38 when controlling for human judgments. Both the computer algorithm and human judgments have substantial and unique contributions to self-other agreement. That is pretty cool if you ask me.<\/p>\n<p>3) Although the paper and the reports make it sound as if computers have some sort of knowledge that we do not, this is of course not true. The computer-based algorithm for making personality judgments is based entirely on the person&#8217;s behavior. That is, &#8220;Liking&#8221; something on Facebook is a behavior. The computer is taking the sum total of those behaviors into account and using them as a basis for &#8220;judgment.&#8221; And these behaviors came from the person whose personality is being judged. Thus, one could argue that the computer judgments are merely linking self-reports of behavior or preferences (e.g., I like Starbucks) with self-reports of personality.<\/p>\n<p>I don&#8217;t mean to downplay the study here. I thought it was a really interesting and well-conducted study when I reviewed it, and I still do. The study combines a large sample, multiple methodologies, and sophisticated (but appropriate) analytic techniques to examine something really interesting. In those respects, this study is a model for how many of us should be doing psychological research.<\/p>\n<p>[1] All I did was Google &#8220;computers are better than humans&#8221; and those were the top three stories to appear. I&#8217;m told there are many more.<\/p>\n<p>Note: Thanks to David Funder and Simine Vazire for prior comments on this post.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday, as I was standing in line in my campus bookstore, I heard someone on the radio talk about a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing that a computer algorithm, relying only on the things you &#8220;Like&#8221; on Facebook, makes more accurate judgments of your personality than [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[8,4],"class_list":["post-83","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-personality","tag-psychology"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":87,"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83\/revisions\/87"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rynesherman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}