Inferring psychological traits from spending categories and dynamic consumption patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years there has been a growing interest in analyzing human behavioral data generated by new technologies. One type of digital footprint that is universal across the world, but that has received relatively little attention to date, is spending behavior. In this paper, using the transaction records of 1306 bank customers, we investigated the extent to which individual-level psychological characteristics can be inferred from bank transaction data. Specifically, we developed a more comprehensive feature space using: (1) overall spending behavior (i.e. total number and total amount of transaction), (2) temporal spending behavior (i.e. variability, persistence, and burstiness), (3) category-related spending behavior (i.e. diversity, persistence, and turnover), (4) customer category profile, and (5) socio-demographic information. Using these features, we first explore their association with individual psychological characteristics, we then analyze the performances of the different feature families and finally, we try to understand to what extent psychological characteristics from spending records can be inferred. Our results show that inferring the psychological traits of an individual is a challenging task, even when using a comprehensive set of features that take temporal aspects of spending into account. We found that Materialism and Self-Control could be inferred with relatively high levels of accuracy, while the accuracy obtained for the Big Five traits was lower, with only Extraversion and Neuroticism reaching reasonable classification performances. Hence, for traits like Materialism, Self-control, Extraversion, and Neuroticism our findings could be used to improve psychologically-informed advertising strategies for specific products as well as personality-based spending management apps and credit scoring approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".