Advertisement

Changing Faces: Identifying Complex Behavioural Profiles

  • Giles Oatley
  • Tom Crick
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8533)

Abstract

There has been significant interest in the identification and profiling of insider threats, attracting high-profile policy focus and strategic research funding from governments and funding bodies. Recent examples attracting worldwide attention include the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and the US authorities. The challenges with profiling an individual across a range of activities is that their data footprint will legitimately vary significantly based on time and/or location. The insider threat problem is thus a specific instance of the more general problem of profiling complex behaviours. In this paper, we discuss our preliminary research models relating to profiling complex behaviours and present a set of experiments related to changing roles as viewed through large-scale social network datasets, such as Twitter. We employ psycholinguistic metrics in this work, considering changing roles from the standpoint of a trait-based personality theory. We also present further representations, including an alternative psychological theory (not trait-based), and established techniques for crime modelling, spatio-temporal and graph/network, to investigate within a wider reasoning framework.

Keywords

Personality Type Crime Type Dark Triad Inside Threat Linguistic Style 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Vazire, S., Gosling, S.D.: e-Perceptions: Personality Impressions Based on Personal Websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(1), 123–132 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haggerty, J., Casson, M.C., Haggerty, S., Taylor, M.J.: A Framework for the Forensic Analysis of User Interaction with Social Media. International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics 4(4), 15–30 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McAdams, D.P.: Personality, Modernity, and the Storied Self: A Contemporary Framework for Studying Persons. Psychological Inquiry 7(4), 295–321 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gosling, S.: Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You. Profile Books (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R.: Neo PI-R Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norman, W.T.: Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66(6), 574–583 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mairesse, F., Walker, M.A., Mehi, M.R., Moore, R.K.: Using Linguistic Cues for the Automatic Recognition of Personality in Conversation and Text. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 30, 457–500 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oatley, G.C., Ewart, B.W.: Crimes Analysis Software: ‘Pins in Maps’, Clustering and Bayes Net Prediction. Expert Systems with Applications 25(4), 569–588 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oatley, G.C., McGarry, K., Ewart, B.W.: Offender Network Metrics. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science & Applications 12(3), 2440–2448 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oatley, G.C., Ewart, B.W., Zeleznikow, J.: Decision support systems for police: Lessons from the application of data mining techniques to “soft” forensic evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14(1-2), 35–100 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oatley, G.C., Ewart, B.W.: Applying the concept of revictimisation – using burglars’ behaviour to predict houses at risk of future victimisations. International Journal of Police Science and Management 5(2), 69–84 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ewart, B.W., Oatley, G.C.: The criminal patterns of retail offending gangs: Some lessons from the integration of social network and geographical analyses. In: Proceedings of the British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D.J., Labianca, G.: Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Science 323(5916), 892–895 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Newgent, R.A., Parr, P.E., Newman, I., Higgins, K.K.: The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator: Estimates of Reliability and Validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 36(4), 226–237 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oatley, G.C.: Computer implementation of indirect questioning techniques for psychological testing. Master’s thesis, University of Westminster (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hare, R.D.: Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), 2nd edn. Pearson (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plutchick, R., Conte, H.R.: Measuring emotions and the derivatives of the emotions: Personality traits, ego defenses and coping styles. In: Contemporary Approaches to Psychological Assessment. Brunner Maze, pp. 239–269 (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Woodworth, M., Hancock, J., Porter, S., Hare, R., Logan, M., O’Toole, M.E., Smith, S.: The Language of Psychopaths: New Findings and Implications for Law Enforcement. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (July 2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sumner, C., Byers, A., Boochever, R., Park, G.J.: Predicting Dark Triad Personality Traits from Twitter Usage and a Linguistic Analysis of Tweets. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA 2012). IEEE Press (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pennebaker, J.W., King, L.A.: Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, 1296–1312 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oberlander, J., Gill, A.J.: Individual differences and implicit language: Personality, parts-of-speech and pervasiveness. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1035–1040 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oberlander, J., Gill, A.J.: Language with character: A stratified corpus comparison of individual differences in e-mail communication. Discourse Processes 42(3), 239–270 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iacobelli, F., Gill, A.J., Nowson, S., Oberlander, J.: Large Scale Personality Classification of Bloggers. In: D’Mello, S., Graesser, A., Schuller, B., Martin, J.-C. (eds.) ACII 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6975, pp. 568–577. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eysenck, H.J.: Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences 13(6), 667–673 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paunonen, S.V., Jackson, D.N.: What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of Personality 68(5), 821–836 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Block, J.: The Five-Factor Framing of Personality and Beyond: Some Ruminations. Psychological Inquiry 21(1), 2–25 (2010)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szirmák, Z., De Raad, B.: Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits. European Journal of Personality 8(2), 95–117 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Fruyt, F., McCrae, R.R., Szirmák, Z., Nagy, J.: The Five-Factor Personality Inventory as a Measure of the Five-Factor Model: Belgian, American, and Hungarian Comparisons with the NEO-PI-R. Assessment 11(3), 207–215 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cattell, R.B.: The description and measurement of personality. Harcourt, Brace & World (1946)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eysenck, H.J.: Dimensions of Personality. Routledge & Kegan Paul (1947)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chernoff, H.: The Use of Faces to Represent Points in k-Dimensional Space Graphically. Journal of the American Statistical Association 68(342), 361–368 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alison, L., Bennell, C., Mokros, A., Ormerod, D.: The Personality paradox in offender profiling. A theoretical review of the processes involved in deriving background characterictics from crime scene actions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8(1), 115–135 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Snook, B., Cullen, R.M., Bennell, C., Taylor, P.J., Gendreau, P.: The Criminal Profiling Illusion: What’s Behind the Smoke and Mirrors? Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(10), 1257–1276 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giles Oatley
    • 1
  • Tom Crick
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing & Information SystemsCardiff Metropolitan UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations