The areas of machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases have considerably matured in recent years. In this article, we briefly review recent developments as well as classical algorithms that stood the test of time. Our goal is to provide a general introduction into different tasks such as learning from tabular data, behavioral data, or textual data, with a particular focus on actual and potential applications in behavioral sciences. The supplemental appendix to the article also provides practical guidance for using the methods by pointing the reader to proven software implementations. The focus is on R, but we also cover some libraries in other programming languages as well as systems with easy-to-use graphical interfaces.
AltszylerE.RibeiroS.SigmanM.Fernandez SlezakD. (2017). The interpretation of dream meaning: Resolving ambiguity using Latent Semantic Indexing in a small corpus of text. Consciousness and Cognition, 56, 178-187.
2.
BehrenbruchK.AtzmüllerM.EversC.SchmidtL.StummeG.GeihsK. (2012). A personality based design approach using subgroup discovery. In WincklerM.ForbrigP.BernhauptR. (Eds.), Human-centered software engineering (pp. 259-266). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
3.
BillariF. C.FürnkranzJ.PrskawetzA. (2006). Timing, sequencing, and quantum of life course events: A machine learning approach. European Journal of Population, 22, 37-65.
4.
BouyssouD.Jacquet-LagrèzeE.PernyP.SlowińskiR.VanderpootenD.VinckeP. (2002). Aiding decisions with multiple criteria—Essays in honor of Bernard Roy. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
5.
BradleyR. A.TerryM. E. (1952). The rank analysis of incomplete block designs—I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39, 324-345.
6.
BredereckR.ChenJ.NiedermeierR.WalshT. (2017). Parliamentary voting procedures: Agenda control, manipulation, and uncertainty. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 59, 133-173.
7.
CaliskanA.BrysonJ. J.NarayananA. (2017). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334), 183-186.
8.
ChenE. E.WojcikS. P. (2016). A practical guide to big data research in psychology. Psychological Methods, 21, 458.
CoughlinP. J. (2008). Probabilistic voting theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CuhadarE.DruckmanD. (2014). Representative decision making: Challenges to democratic peace theory. In GalluccioM. (Ed.), Handbook of international negotiation: Interpersonal, intercultural, and diplomatic perspectives (pp. 4-14). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
12.
De RoseA.PallaraA. (1997). Survival trees: An alternative non-parametric multivariate technique for life history analysis. European Journal of Population, 13, 223-241.
13.
DengL.LiuY. (2018). Deep learning in natural language processing. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
14.
DiakopoulosN. A.ShammaD. A. (2010). Characterizing debate performance via aggregated twitter sentiment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘10; pp. 1195-1198). Atlanta, GA: ACM.
15.
DonohueW. A.YuhuaL.DanielD. (2014). “Validating LIWC dictionaries: The Oslo I accords.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 282-301.
16.
DruckmanD. (1993). The situational levers of negotiating flexibility. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 236-276.
17.
DruckmanD.HarrisR.FürnkranzJ. (2006). Modeling international negotiation: Statistical and machine learning approaches. In TrapplR. (Ed.), Programming for peace: Computer-aided methods for international conflict resolution and prevention. Vol. 2: Advances in group decision and negotiation (pp. 227-250). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
18.
FengH.LesotM.-J.DetynieckiM. (2010). Using association rules to discover color-emotion relationships based on social tagging. In International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (pp. 544-553). New York, NY: Springer.
19.
FernandezM.AlaniH. (2018). Online misinformation: Challenges and future directions. In Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2018 (WWW ’18, pp. 595-602). Lyon, France: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
20.
FlekovaL.GurevychI. (2015). Personality profiling of fictional characters using sense-level links between lexical resources. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1805-1816). Lisbon, Portugal: Association for Computational Linguistics.
21.
FürnkranzJ.PetrakJ.TrapplR. (1997). Knowledge discovery in international conflict databases. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 11, 91-118.
22.
GerberD.EstevesD.LehmannJ.BühmannL.UsbeckR.Ngonga NgomoA. C.SpeckR. (2015). Defacto-temporal and multilingual deep fact validation. Journal of Web Semantics, 35(Pt. 2), 85-101.
23.
GohD. H.AngR. P. (2007). An introduction to association rule mining: An application in counseling and help-seeking behavior of adolescents. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 259-266.
24.
GreeneM. N.MorganP. H.FoxallG. R. (2017). Neural networks and consumer behavior: Neural models, logistic regression, and the behavioral perspective model. Behavior Analyst, 40, 393-418.
25.
HelmstetterS.PaulheimH. (2018, August28-31). Weakly supervised learning for fake news detection on Twitter. Paper published in 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), Barcelona, Spain.
26.
HerawanT.VitasariP.AbdullahZ. (2011). Mining interesting association rules of student suffering mathematics anxiety. In Mohamad ZainJ.MaseriW.Wan MohdbtEl-QawasmehE. (Eds.), Software engineering and computer systems (pp. 495-508). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
27.
HoughtonG. (2004). Introduction to connectionist models in cognitive psychology: Basic structures, processes, and algorithms. In Connectionist models in cognitive psychology (pp. 11-19). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
28.
HowardM. W.KahanaM. J. (2002). When does semantic similarity help episodic retrieval?Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 85-98.
29.
KomisinM.GuinnC. (2012). Identifying personality types using document classification methods. In Proceedings of Twenty-Fifth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 232-237). Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
30.
KoskiN. (2004). Impulse buying on the Internet: Encouraging and discouraging factors. Frontiers of E-business Research, 4, 23-35.
31.
KotsiantisS.PierrakeasC.PintelasP. (2002). Efficiency of machine learning techniques in predicting students’ performance in distance learning systems. Agrinio, Greece: University of Patras.
32.
KrizhevskyA.SutskeverI.HintonG. E. (2017). ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 84-90.
33.
LangvilleA. M.MeyerC. D. (2012). Who’s #1? The science of rating and ranking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
LuceR. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.
35.
MakiW. S.KrimskyM.MunozS. (2006). An efficient method for estimating semantic similarity based on feature overlap: Reliability and validity of semantic feature ratings. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 153-157.
36.
MakiW. S.McKinleyL. N.ThompsonA. G. (2004). Semantic distance norms computed from an electronic dictionary (WordNet). In Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 421-431.
37.
MardenJ. I. (1995). Analyzing and modeling rank data. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
38.
McArdleJ. J.RitschardG. (Eds.). (2013). Contemporary issues in exploratory data mining in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
MoeW. W. (2003). Buying, searching, or browsing: Differentiating between online shoppers using in-store navigational clickstream. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 29-39.
40.
MurphyJ.HofackerC.MizerskiR. (2006). Primacy and recency effects on clicking behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 522-535.
41.
O’HalloranK. L.TanS.WignellP.BatemanJ.PhamD.-S.GrossmanM.Vande MoereA. (2019). Interpreting text and image relations in violent extremist discourse: A mixed methods approach for big data analytics. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31, 454-474.
42.
PlackettR. (1975). The analysis of permutations. Applied Statistics, 24, 193-202.
RodgersS.ThorsonE. (2000). The interactive advertising model: How users perceive and process online ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1(1), 41-60.
45.
RoedigerH. L.McDermottK. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803.
46.
RosenfeldA.ZuckermanI.AzariaA.KrausS. (2012). Combining psychological models with machine learning to better predict people’s decisions. Synthese, 189(Suppl. 1), 81-93.
47.
RossiF.Brent VenableK.WalshT. (2011). A short introduction to preferences: Between artificial intelligence and social choice (Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning). London, England: Morgan & Claypool.
48.
SaifH.DickinsonT.KastlerL.FernandezM.AlaniH. (2017). A semantic graph-based approach for radicalisation detection on social media. In Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference (pp. 571-587). New York, NY: Springer.
49.
SenecalS.KalczynskiP. J.NantelJ. (2005). Consumers’ decision-making process and their online shopping behavior: A clickstream analysis. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1599-1608.
50.
ShultzT. R. (2013). Computational models in developmental psychology. In DelazoP. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology. Vol. 1: Body and mind (p. 477). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
51.
SilverD.HuangA.MaddisonC. J.GuezA.SifreL.van den DriesscheG.. . . HassabisD. (2016). Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529, 484-489.
52.
Soler-CompanyJ.WannerL. (2019). Automatic classification and linguistic analysis of extremist online material. In KompatsiarisI.HuetB.MezarisV.GurrinC.ChengW. H.VrochidisS. (Eds.), Multimedia modeling (pp. 577-582). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
53.
SperiosuM.SudanN.UpadhyayS.BaldridgeJ. (2011). Twitter polarity classification with label propagation over lexical links and the follower graph. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Unsupervised Learning in NLP (EMNLP ’11, pp. 53-63). Edinburgh, Scotland: Association for Computational Linguistics.
54.
StillmanP. E.ShenX.FergusonM. J. (2018). How mouse-tracking can advance social cognitive theory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 531-543.
55.
StumpfS.RajaramV.LiL.WongW.-K.BurnettM. M.DietterichT. G.. . . HerlockerJ. L. (2009). Interacting meaningfully with machine learning systems: Three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 639-662.
56.
SylwesterK.PurverM. (2015). Twitter language use reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans. PloS One, 10, e0137422.
57.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54.
58.
ThurstoneL. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review, 34, 278-286.
59.
TroisiO.GrimaldiM.LoiaF.MaioneG. (2018). Big data and sentiment analysis to highlight decision behaviours: A case study for student population. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37, 1111-1128.
60.
VargaA.Cano BasaveA. E.RoweM.CiravegnaF.HeY. (2014). Linked knowledge sources for topic classification of microposts: A semantic graph-based approach. Journal of Web Semantics, 26, 36-57.
61.
WalshC. G.RibeiroJ. D.FranklinJ. C. (2017). Predicting risk of suicide attempts over time through machine learning. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 12.
62.
WilsonT.WiebeJ.HwaR. (2004). Just how mad are you? Finding strong and weak opinion clauses. Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-04), 4, 761-769.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
