skip to main content
research-article

Image-Based Personality Questionnaire Design

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 March 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article explores the problem of image-based personality questionnaire design. Compared with the traditional text-based personality questionnaire, the image-based personality questionnaire is more natural, truthful, and language insensitive. Instead of responding to textual questions, the subjects are provided a set of “choose-your-favorite-image” visual questions. With each question, consisting of image options describing the same semantic concept, the subjects are requested to choose their favorite image. Based on responses to typically 15 to 25 questions, we can accurately estimate the subjects’ personality traits in five dimensions. The solution to design such an image-based personality questionnaire consists of concept-question identification and image-option selection. We have presented a preliminary framework to regularize these two steps in this exploratory study. A demo automatically adapting between desktop and mobile devices is available at http://120.27.209.14/vbfi. Subjective and objective evaluations have demonstrated the feasibility of accurately estimating a subject’s personality in a limited round of questions.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Aran Oya, Biel Joan-Isaac, and Gatica-Perez Daniel. 2014. Broadcasting oneself: Visual discovery of vlogging styles. IEEE Transactions On Multimedia 16, 1 (2014), 201215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. [2] Back Mitja D., Stopfer Juliane M., Vazire Simine, Gaddis Sam, Schmukle Stefan C., Egloff Boris, and Gosling Samuel D.. 2010. Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science 21, 3 (2010), 372374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Batrinca Ligia, Mana Nadia, Lepri Bruno, Sebe Nicu, and Pianesi Fabio. 2016. Multimodal personality recognition in collaborative goal-oriented tasks. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 18, 4 (2016), 659673.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Biederman Irving and Vessel Edward. 2006. Perceptual pleasure and the brain a novel theory explains why the brain craves information and seeks it through the senses. American Scientist 94, 3 (2006), 247253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Biel Joan-Isaac and Gatica-Perez Daniel. 2013. The YouTube lens: Crowdsourced personality impressions and audiovisual analysis of vlogs. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 15, 1 (2013), 4155.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Birlutiu Adriana, Groot Perry, and Heskes Tom. 2013. Efficiently learning the preferences of people. Machine Learning 90, 1 (2013), 128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Cantador I., Fernandez-Tobias I., Bellogin A., et al. 2013. Relating personality types with user preferences in multiple entertainment domains[C]. In Workshop on Emotions & Personality in Personalized Services.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Chittaranjan Gokul, Blom Jan, and Gatica-Perez Daniel. 2011. Who’s who with big-five: Analyzing and classifying personality traits with smartphones. In 15th Annual International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC’11). IEEE, 2936.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Cristani Marco, Vinciarelli Alessandro, Segalin Cristina, and Perina Alessandro. 2013. Unveiling the multimedia unconscious: Implicit cognitive processes and multimedia content analysis. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. ACM, 213222.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Raad Boele De, Perugini Marco, Hrebícková Martina, and Szarota Piotr. 1998. Lingua franca of personality taxonomies and structures based on the psycholexical approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29, 1 (1998), 212232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Ferwerda Bruce and Tkalcic Marko. 2018. You are what you post: What the content of Instagram pictures tells about users’ personality. In The 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, March 7-11, Tokyo, Japan. CEUR-WS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Fiske S. T. and Taylor S. E.. 1991. Social cognition[M]. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Funder D. C.. 1997. The personality puzzle[M]. WW Norton & Co.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Guntuku Sharath Chandra, Lin Weisi, Carpenter Jordan, Ng Wee Keong, Ungar Lyle H., and Preoţiuc-Pietro Daniel. 2017. Studying personality through the content of posted and liked images on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference. 223227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Guntuku Sharath Chandra, Roy Sujoy, and Weisi Lin. 2015. Personality modeling based image recommendation. In MultiMedia Modeling. Springer, 171182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Harris Chester W. and Kaiser Henry F.. 1964. Oblique factor analytic solutions by orthogonal transformations. Psychometrika 29, 4 (1964), 347362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Ivcevic Zorana and Ambady Nalini. 2012. Personality impressions from identity claims on Facebook. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 1, 1 (2012), 38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Kramer Robin S. S. and Ward Robert. 2010. Internal facial features are signals of personality and health. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63, 11 (2010), 22732287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Lay Alixe and Ferwerda Bruce. 2018. Predicting users’ personality based on their ‘liked’ images on Instagram. In The 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, March 7-11, 2018. CEUR-WS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Little Anthony C. and Perrett David I.. 2007. Using composite images to assess accuracy in personality attribution to faces. British Journal of Psychology 98, 1 (2007), 111126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Liu Leqi, Preotiuc-Pietro Daniel, Samani Zahra Riahi, Moghaddam Mohsen E., and Ungar Lyle. 2016. Analyzing personality through social media profile picture choice. In 10th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Lovato Pietro, Bicego Manuele, Segalin Cristina, Perina Alessandro, Sebe Nicu, and Cristani Marco. 2014. Faved! biometrics: Tell me which image you like and I’ll tell you who you are. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 9, 3 (2014), 364374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Malerba Donato, Esposito Floriana, Ceci Michelangelo, and Appice Annalisa. 2004. Top-down induction of model trees with regression and splitting nodes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 26, 5 (2004), 612625.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Matthews Gerald, Deary Ian J., and Whiteman Martha C.. 2003. Personality Traits. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] McCrae Robert R. and John Oliver P.. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60, 2 (1992), 175215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] McDonald Jennifer Dodorico. 2008. Measuring personality constructs: The advantages and disadvantages of self-reports, informant reports and behavioural assessments. Enquire 1, 1 (2008), 119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Merler Michele, Huang Bert, Xie Lexing, Hua Gang, and Natsev Apostol. 2012. Semantic model vectors for complex video event recognition. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 14, 1 (2012), 88101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Nie Jie, Cui Peng, Yan Yan, Huang Lei, Li Zhen, and Wei Zhiqiang. 2014. How your portrait impresses people?: Inferring personality impressions from portrait contents. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. ACM, 905908.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Oosterhof Nikolaas N. and Todorov Alexander. 2008. The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 32 (2008), 1108711092.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Paulhus D. L. and Vazire S.. 2007. The self-report method. In Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology. The Guilford Press, 224–239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Penton-Voak Ian S., Pound Nicholas, Little Anthony C., and Perrett David I.. 2006. Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition 24, 5 (2006), 607640.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Rattray Janice and Jones Martyn C.. 2007. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. Journal of Clinical Nursing 16, 2 (2007), 234243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Sang Jitao, Zhang Huaiwen, and Xu Changsheng. 2016. Visual BFI: An exploratory study for image-based personality test. In PCM 17th Pacific-Rim Conference on Advances in Multimedia Information Processing - Volume 9916. 95106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Segalin C., Cheng D. S., and Cristani M.. 2017. Social profiling through image understanding: Personality inference using convolutional neural networks[J]. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 156 (2017), 3450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Segalin Crisitina, Perina Alessandro, Cristani Marco, and Vinciarelli Alessandro. 2017. The pictures we like are our image: Continuous mapping of favorite pictures into self-assessed and attributed personality traits. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 8, 2 (2017), 268285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Sutherland Clare A. M., Oldmeadow Julian A., Santos Isabel M., Towler John, Burt D. Michael, and Young Andrew W.. 2013. Social inferences from faces: Ambient images generate a three-dimensional model. Cognition 127, 1 (2013), 105118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Szegedy Christian, Liu Wei, Jia Yangqing, Sermanet Pierre, Reed Scott, Anguelov Dragomir, Erhan Dumitru, Vanhoucke Vincent, and Rabinovich Andrew. 2015. Going deeper with convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Tausczik Yla R. and Pennebaker James W.. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29, 1 (2010), 2454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [39] Tkalcic Marko, Tasic Jurij, and Košir Andrej. 2009. Emotive and personality parameters in multimedia recommender systems. Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII’09), 33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. [40] Vinciarelli Alessandro and Mohammadi Gelareh. 2014. A survey of personality computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 5, 3 (2014), 273291.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Yao Ting, Mei Tao, and Ngo Chong-Wah. 2015. Learning query and image similarities with ranking canonical correlation analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 2836.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Zhuang Jinfeng, Mei Tao, Hoi Steven CH, Xu Ying-Qing, and Li Shipeng. 2011. When recommendation meets mobile: Contextual and personalized recommendation on the go. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. 153162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Image-Based Personality Questionnaire Design

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications
      ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications  Volume 18, Issue 4
      November 2022
      497 pages
      ISSN:1551-6857
      EISSN:1551-6865
      DOI:10.1145/3514185
      • Editor:
      • Abdulmotaleb El Saddik
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 March 2022
      • Accepted: 1 November 2021
      • Revised: 1 October 2021
      • Received: 1 October 2020
      Published in tomm Volume 18, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!