Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

How Smartphone Data Can Predict Your Personality

For many people around the globe, smartphones are an integral and indispensable part of their daily lives. Rarely more than an arm’s length away, these sensor-rich devices are easily used to collect rich and extensive records of their users’ behaviors which some argue poses serious threats to individual privacy.

But what can smartphone data tell us about the user’s personality?

Computational social scientists and psychologists at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet in Munich (LMU) utilize smartphone data in order to learn more about personality traits and social behavior.

According to Science Direct, in a study that appears in the journal PNAS, a team of researchers led by LMU psychologist Markus Bühner set out to determine whether conventional data passively collected by smartphones (such as times or frequencies of use) provide insights into users’ personalities. The answer was clear cut.

“Yes, automated analysis of these data does allow us to draw conclusions about the personalities of users, at least for most of the major dimensions of personality,” says Clemens Stachl, who used to work with Bühner

The LMU team recruited 624 volunteers for their PhoneStudy project. The participants agreed to fill out an extensive questionnaire describing their personality traits, and to install an app that had been developed specially for the study on their phones for 30 days. The app was designed to collect coded information relating to the behavior of the user.

According to their press release, “The researchers were primarily interested in data pertaining to communication patterns, social behavior and mobility, together with users’ choice and consumption of music, the selection of apps used, and the temporal distribution of their phone usage over the course of the day. All the data on personality and smartphone use were then analyzed with the aid of machine-learning algorithms, which were trained to recognize and extract patterns from the behavioral data, and relate these patterns to the information obtained from the personality surveys.

Focus was given to the five most significant personality dimensions (the Big Five) identified by psychologists, which enable them to characterize personality differences between individuals in a comprehensive way:

  • Openness: willingness to adopt new ideas, experiences and values
  • Conscientiousness: dependability, punctuality, ambitiousness and discipline
  • Extraversion: sociability, assertiveness, adventurousness, dynamism and friendliness
  • Agreeableness: willingness to trust others, good natured, outgoing, obliging, helpful
  • Neuroticism (Emotional stability): self-confidence, equanimity, positivity, self-control

The automated analysis revealed that the algorithm was indeed able to successfully derive most of these personality traits from combinations of the multifarious elements of their smartphone usage.

Moreover, the results provide hints as to which types of digital behavior are most informative for specific self-assessments of personality. For example, data pertaining to communication patterns and social behavior (as reflected by smartphone use) correlated strongly with levels of self-reported extraversion, while information relating to patterns of day and night-time activity was significantly predictive of self-reported degrees of conscientiousness.

The results of the study are of great value to researchers, as studies have so far been almost exclusively based on self-assessments. The conventional method has proven to be sufficiently reliable in predicting levels of professional success, for instance.

“Nevertheless, we still know very little about how people actually behave in their everyday lives — apart from what they choose to tell us on our questionnaires,” says Markus Bühner. “

Thanks to their broad distribution, their intensive use and their very high level of performance, smartphones are an ideal tool with which to probe the relationships between self-reported and real patterns of behavior.”

Want to learn more about this hugely complex but entirely fascinating topic?
Don’t miss a rare opportunity to learn from Dr. David Matsumoto in a first-time series, powered by Humintell science!
Learn more here!

Addressing Arguments Against Facial Expressions of Emotion

Within the past few months, many people have reached out to Humintell and asked us to comment on recent research articles that argue against facial expressions of emotion. After a lot of deliberation, Director Dr. David Matsumoto addresses those issues in the video above. 

First and foremost, I’d like to express my deep and sincere respect for all the researchers on both sides of this issue. I encourage healthy debates and more importantly, data about those debates. I think those debates are very healthy for science as well as for scientists, practitioners but most importantly, for the general public.

Dr. Matsumoto has researched and read the vast majority of all the studies that have been cited as evidence for and against the various positions that exist. In the video above, he does not get into technical issues of claims or the nature of the studies or exact data. Though he is happy to get into those discussions, they would require some knowledge of methodology. More importantly, he thinks the message that he wants to impart gets lost really easily if that path is gone down.

Dr. Matsumoto agrees with all the data he has seen from all the researchers. What he doesn’t agree with are all the interpretations or claims made about that data.

I believe data and findings are generated within the limitations of the methodologies that are used to produce that data.

If you look at the papers that argue against facial expressions of emotion, they typically don’t encompass all of the evidence for facial expressions of emotion or their universality including:

  • 100s of Judgement studies
  • Production studies
  • Studies of blind individuals
  • Studies of children and infants around the world
  • Studies of kin vs non-kin
  • Studies of family vs non-family members
  • Non-human primate studies

These types of debates have been occurring for a century. Ever since Darwin started this work and published it in 1872, these ideas have been debated hotly both in the lay public and academic discourse. Within the academic discourse, the start of these debates came from early anthropologists like Margaret Mead and Ray Birdwhistell. Those debates carried on to the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The original universality studies were conducted in the 60s and 70s. And even from the 80s these same debates and arguments have been occurring. 

To tell you the truth, the nature of the arguments made are essentially the same today as they were 30 or 40 years ago when I started being involved with them directly myself. 

A lot of the thinking that’s dominated this field and much of academia is what Dr. Matsumoto calls “logical determinism”. Logical determinism is a way of thinking that things are mutually exclusive; they’re either or, it’s this way or that way. They are either or dichotomies. Dr. Matsumoto thinks this is true for a lot of academic debates as well as much every day thinking.

What are the limitations of logical determinism?

  • Leads easily to confirmation bias. This confirmation bias exists in the way academics think about their phenomenon. It also biases the way they create studies and the way they, Dr. Matsumoto included, interpret data. 
  • Leads to what might call straw person arguments. One straw person argument heard all the time is “facial expressions of emotion are the only things that faces do” or that “they’re always reflective of an emotional state”. 

The thought that facial expressions are always reliable indicators of emotion is a straw person argument because no one who studies facial expressions of emotion today seriously believes that. 

There’s actually a recent survey of all of the most contemporary emotion researchers in the field that was published in 2016. A survey went out to about 250 of those researchers around the world and 88% of them believed there was compelling evidence for universals in any aspect of emotion. The vast majority of researchers in this field believe the existence of facial expressions of emotion but they don’t believe these extreme straw person arguments and no one does.

Faces do many, many things.

One very special thing that faces do is create facial expressions of emotion. We know that our faces can create thousands of behaviors.

We also know that our facial behavior has many other different functions such as:

  • Signal cognition and cognitive processes
  • Signal specific verbal words or phrases
  • Speech articulation
  • Signals of physical exertion or physical effort
  • Idiosyncratic things

Because of these multiple functions of facial expressions, it makes perfect sense that some experiments will find (under some conditions), that facial behaviors are not necessarily a signal of an emotion. There’s no question about that.

But what is also true is that when a true and strong emotional reaction is spontaneously triggered, and the closer that reaction is to something that is really meaningful in our lives, that will produce the impulse to create a facial expression of emotion in people all around the world.

The link between a spontaneous, strong, intense, meaningful emotional reaction and a corresponding facial expression has never been refuted by any study.

There have been many other studies about other aspects of the face, especially studies where people are judging faces. But no study that has actually elicited a meaningful, intense, emotional reaction *spontaneously* has shown otherwise. In addition, there are a lot of studies that have shown that the face does many, many other things sometimes with the same muscles we use for emotion signaling. 

It is necessary to understand the entirety of the data in terms of the complexity of the face.

What is it about the question of universality or not that gets people so heated?

Perhaps the question about universality is somehow related to how we see ourselves and humankind; whether we see humans as fundamentally similar or somehow different. It is a deep, philosophical question with no clear answers.

Although he doesn’t agree with all the interpretations that are made of the data, Dr. Matsumoto believes that we can find ways to understand the totality of the data without negating one side or the other. 

To learn more about the seven basic emotions, visit this past blog

Rapport in Investigative Interviews

Humintell Director Dr. David Matsumoto recently conducted a webinar on “Understanding Rapport and its Possible Components” for the International Association of Interviewers (IAI).

Please enjoy this recording of the recent webinar as well as the outline he wrote that preceded it.

 

Anyone and everyone who expounds an ethical, non-confrontational, empirically-based approach to interviewing acknowledges the importance of rapport. And for good reason: Rapport has been documented in basic social psychological research for decades as a crucial element in any successful human interaction involving coordination and cooperation among interactants. Recent empirical studies have increasingly demonstrated it is also critical to investigative interviewing. Anyone who does investigative interviewing can attest to its importance.

Of course, I am preaching to the choir. As I write this I am reading the IAI February 2020 Featured Blog entitled “Successful interviews: Why rapport is crucial to policing.” It, along with IAI’s recent webinar on rapport, are excellent examples of the importance of rapport in investigative interviewing.

As I have been researching, thinking about, and struggling with this important topic, I have come to realize that we still don’t have good answers to some really fundamental questions about rapport. These include what exactly is rapport? And what is it not? Is it necessary or sufficient for successful investigative interviews? Are there other equally if not more important concepts that are crucial to successful interviews?

Answers to these very basic, but very important, questions are not found in the scientific literature, either.

Still, it seems to me that we should seek answers or clarity to these questions because how we land on them can influence many things, including our understanding about the nature and function of rapport in interviews; how to establish, maintain, and repair it; and whether there are other concepts that we should also keep in mind when conducting interviews.

In this webinar, I will raise these questions, bringing examples from the scientific literature as well as practical applications. I won’t provide a recipe for how to establish and maintain rapport in investigative interviews, because there are so many extremely competent interviewers, especially those certified in the CFI/IAI method! But I would like to raise awareness of some important questions, and possible limitations, of the concept of rapport, and bring to bear whatever scientific evidence there is to address these issues.

The overall goal of the webinar will be to raise awareness about and critical thinking related to this incredibly important concept to investigative interviews.