Studying user income through language, behaviour and affect in social media

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 9, 2015, Pages

  Preoţiuc Pietro, Daniel ^a   Volkeva, Svitlana ^b   Lampos, Vasileios ^c   Bachrach, Yoram ^d   Aletras, Nikolaos ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGER; BEHAVIOR; EDUCATION; FEAR; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTELLIGENCE; LANGUAGE; MALE; SOCIAL MEDIA; AFFECT; CLASSIFICATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; INCOME; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTILIZATION;

AFFECT; DATA COLLECTION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCOME; INTELLIGENCE; LANGUAGE; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 84947460277     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138717     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Lampos V, Cristianini N. Nowcasting Events from the Social Web with Statistical Learning. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST). 2012; 3(4):72:1-72:22.
2. Tumasjan A, Sprenger TO, Sandner PG, Welpe IM. Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. ICWSM; 2010. p. 178-185.
3. Bollen J, Mao H, Zeng X. Twitter Mood Predicts the Stock Market. Journal of Computational Science. 2011; 2(1):1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jocs.2010.12.007
4. Eisenstein J, O'Connor B, Smith NA, Xing EP. Diffusion of Lexical Change in Social Media. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113114
5. Cheng Z, Caverlee J, Lee K. You are where you Tweet: A Content-Based aAproach to Geo-Locating Twitter Users. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. CIKM; 2010. p. 759-768.
6. Burger DJ, Henderson J, Kim G, Zarrella G. Discriminating Gender on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. EMNLP; 2011. p. 1301-1309.
7. Rao D, Yarowsky D, Shreevats A, Gupta M. Classifying Latent User Attributes in Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Search and Mining User-generated Contents. SMUC; 2010. p. 37-44.
8. Nguyen D, Smith NA, Rosé CP. Author Age Prediction from Text Using Linear Regression. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities. ACL; 2011. p. 115-123.
9. Schwartz HA, Eichstaedt JC, Kern ML, Dziurzynski L, Ramones SM, Agrawal M, et al. Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach. PLoS ONE. 2013 09; 8(9). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073791
10. Pennacchiotti M, Popescu AM. A Machine Learning Approach to Twitter User Classification. In: Proceedings of the 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. ICWSM; 2011. p. 281-288.
11. Volkova S, Coppersmith G, Van Durme B. Inferring User Political Preferences from Streaming Communications. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL; 2014. p. 186-196.
12. Eisenstein J, O'Connor B, Smith NA, Xing EP. A Latent Variable Model for Geographic Lexical Variation. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. EMNLP; 2010. p. 1277-1287.
13. Lampos V, Aletras N, Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Cohn T. Predicting and Characterising User Impact on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. EACL; 2014. p. 405-413.
14. Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Lampos V, Aletras N. An Analysis of the User Occupational Class through Twitter Content. In: Proceedings of the 53nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL; 2015. p. 1754-1764.
15. Volkova S, Wilson T, Yarowsky D. Exploring Demographic Language Variations to Improve Multilingual Sentiment Analysis in Social Media. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. EMNLP; 2013. p. 1815-1827.
16. Bernstein B. Language and Social Class. British Journal of Sociology. 1960; 11(3):271-276. doi: 10.2307/586750
17. Judge TA, Higgins CA. The Big Five Personality Traits, General Mental Ability, and Career Success across the Life Span. Personnel Psychology; 52(3):621-652. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x
18. Kahneman D, Deaton A. High Income Improves Evaluation of Life but not Emotional Well-Being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010; 107(38):16489-16493. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 1011492107
19. Roberts BW, Kuncel NR, Shiner R, Caspi A, Goldberg LR. The Power of Personality: The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits, Socioeconomic Status, and Cognitive Ability for Predicting Important Life Outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2007; 2(4):313-345. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916. 2007.00047.x PMID: 26151971
20. Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. The MIT Press; 2006.
21. SOC Hierarchy;. Accessed: 2015-09-04. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classifications/current-standard-classifications/soc2010/index.html.
22. Elias P, Birch M, et al. SOC2010: Revision of the Standard Occupational Classification. Economic and Labour Market Review. 2010; 4(7):48-55. doi: 10.1057/elmr.2010.96
23. Sloan L, Morgan J, Burnap P, Williams M. Who Tweets? Deriving the Demographic Characteristics of Age, Occupation and Social Class from Twitter User Meta-Data. PLoS ONE. 2015 03; 10(3). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115545
24. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings;. Accessed: 2015-09-04. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/.
25. Twitter Income Dataset;. Accessed: 2015-09-04. http://figshare.com/articles/Twitter-User-Income-Dataset/1515997.
26. Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Samangooei S, Cohn T, Gibbins N, Niranjan M. Trendminer: an architecture for real time analysis of social media text. In: Workshop on Real-Time Analysis and Mining of Social Streams. ICWSM; 2012. p. 38-42.
27. Volkova S, Bachrach Y, Armstrong M, Sharma V. Inferring Latent User Properties from Texts Published in Social Media. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Demo). AAAI; 2015. p. 4296-4297.
28. Nguyen DP, Trieschnigg R, Doʇruöz A, Gravel R, Theune M, Meder T, et al. Why Gender and Age Prediction from Tweets is Hard: Lessons from a Crowdsourcing Experiment. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. COLING; 2014. p. 1950-1961.
29. Youyou W, Kosinski M, Stillwell D. Computer-based Personality Judgments are more Accurate than those Made by Humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112(4):1036-1040. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418680112
30. Zamal FA, Liu W, Ruths D. Homophily and Latent Attribute Inference: Inferring Latent Attributes of Twitter Users from Neighbors. In: Proceedings of the 6th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. ICWSM; 2012.
31. Cohen R, Ruths D. Classifying Political Orientation on Twitter: It's not Easy! In: Proceedings of the 7th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. ICWSM; 2013. p. 91-99.
32. Sap M, Park G, Eichstaedt J, Kern M, Ungar L, Schwartz HA. Developing Age and Gender Predictive Lexica over Social Media. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. EMNLP; 2014. p. 1146-1151.
33. Ekman P. An Argument for Basic Emotions. Cognition & Emotion. 1992; 6(3-4):169-200. doi: 10.1080/02699939208411068
34. Mikolov T, Sutskever I, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J. Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. NIPS; 2013. p. 3111-3119.
35. Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. In: Proceedings of Workshop at the International Conference on Learning Representations. ICLR; 2013. p. 1-12.
36. Gensim;. Accessed: 2015-09-04. https://radimrehurek.com/gensim/.
37. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2003; 3:993-1022.
38. Pennington J, Socher R, Manning CD. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. EMNLP; 2014. p. 1532-1543.
39. Freedman D. Statistical Models: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press; 2009.
40. Zou H, Hastie T. Regularization and Variable Selection via the Elastic Net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. 2005; 67:301-320. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2005.00503.x
41. Smola AJ, Schölkopf B. A Tutorial on Support Vector Regression. Statistics and Computing. 2004; 14- (3):199-222. doi: 10.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.88
42. Vapnik VN. Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Wiley; 1998.
43. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2011; 12:2825-2830.
44. Neal RM. Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.; 1996.
45. Snelson E, Ghahramani Z. Sparse Gaussian Processes using Pseudo-inputs. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. NIPS; 2006. p. 1257-1264.
46. Mann HB, Whitney DR. On a Test of whether One of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1947;p. 50-60. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177730491
47. Blau FD, Kahn LM. The Gender Earnings Gap: Learning from International Comparisons. The American Economic Review. 1992; 82(2):533-538.
48. US Bureau of Labor Statistics Earnings;. Accessed: 2015-09-04. http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm.
49. UK Earnings by Gender;. Accessed: 2015-09-04. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Earnings+by+Gender.
50. Ethnicity Inequality;. Accessed: 2015-09-04. http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/inequality-ethnicitypoverty-full.pdf.
51. Cohen J. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960; 20(1):37-46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104
52. US Religious Landscape Survey;. Accessed: 2015-09-04. http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/reportreligious-landscape-study-full.pdf.
53. Ng W, Diener E, Aurora R, Harter J. Affluence, Feelings of Stress, and Well-being. Social Indicators Research. 2009; 94(2):257-271. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9422-5
54. Diener E, Biswas-Diener R. Will Money Increase Subjective Well-Being? Social Indicators Research. 2002; 57(2):119-169. doi: 10.1023/A:1014411319119
55. Bernstein B. Class, Codes and Control: Applied Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. vol. 2. Psychology Press; 2003.
56. Pavalanathan U, Eisenstein J. Confounds and Consequences in Geotagged Twitter Data. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. EMNLP; 2015.
57. Hecht B, Hong L, Suh B, Chi EH. Tweets from Justin Bieber's heart: The dynamics of the location field in user profiles. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI; 2011. p. 237-246.
58. Rout D, Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Kalina B, Cohn T. Where's @wally: A classification approach to geolocating users based on their social ties. HT; 2013. p. 11-20.
59. Coppersmith G, Dredze M, Harman C. Quantifying Mental Health Signals in Twitter. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: From Linguistic Signal to Clinical Reality. ACL; 2014. p. 51-60.
60. Beller C, Knowles R, Harman C, Bergsma S, Mitchell M, Van Durme B. I'm a Belieber: Social Roles via Self-Identification and Conceptual Attributes. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL; 2014. p. 181-186.