Using Clustering to extract Personality Information
from socio economic data.
Alexandros Ladas, Uwe Aickelin, Jon Garibaldi

Eamonn Ferguson

Department of Computer Science
University of Nottingham
Nottingham, UK
ayl@cs.nott.ac.uk, uwe.aickelin@nottinham.ac.uk,
jmg@cs.nott.ac.uk

School of Psychology
University of Nottingham
Nottingham, UK
eamonn.ferguson@nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract— It has become apparent that models that have been
applied widely in economics, including Machine Learning
techniques and Data Mining methods, should take into
consideration principles that derive from the theories of
Personality Psychology in order to discover more comprehensive
knowledge regarding complicated economic behaviours. In this
work, we present a method to extract Behavioural Groups by
using simple clustering techniques that can potentially reveal
aspects of the Personalities for their members. We believe that
this is very important because the psychological information
regarding the Personalities of individuals is limited in real world
applications and because it can become a useful tool in improving
the traditional models of Knowledge Economy.
Keywords-component; Data Mining; Clustering; Behavior
Mining; Personality Psychology;

I.

INTRODUCTION

It is now a common belief that Knowledge Economy has a
lot to gain by including psychological information regarding
the Personality of individuals into its methods and practices.
Personality Psychology’s rich theory provided in an
appropriate processed form can enrich models that are applied
in Economics, including models that come from the fields of
Machine Learning and Data Mining. To be able to utilize
psychological information regarding the Personalities of the
individuals in order to enhance Data Mining methods, the
details about the Personality must be either provided in the
appropriate form or extracted directly from the data and
processed properly. Our purpose in this work is to suggest a
new way to extract psychological characteristics of Personality
from alternative sources of data by using clustering algorithms.
We consider this a very important task not only in cases where
this kind of psychological information is not provided, which is
very common in the data gathered from real world applications,
but because it also provides a solid proof that economic data
have the potential to reveal characteristics about the Personality
and thus using them in order to improve the accuracy of Data
Mining models in economy is unbiased and valid.
The importance of accounting individual differences in
economics is highlighted in very diverse areas in bibliography.
From Personality Psychology and Economics’ perspective [4]
it is emphasized that information regarding the Personality,

This work is partially funded by Experian

when applied in a theoretically meaningful way, can provide
further insight in interpreting complexities and patterns of
economic behaviour. From Computer Science perspective,
particularly in Behavior Mining as it is defined in [11], the
procedures of Data Mining and Machine Learning must take
into consideration the semantics of the data, which within the
economic context can be Personality characteristics that govern
the transactional data.
Therefore our aim is to build a model which utilizes
psychological characteristics of Personality in order to guide
Data Mining techniques in extracting valuable knowledge that
can explain economic behaviours. Central role in building this
model plays the notion of behaviour. In [6] behaviour is
defined as the action or reaction of an entity to stimuli in
environment. Since in Personality Psychology, behaviours are
described as manifestations of Personality traits, the task of
mining behaviours from economic datasets that will potentially
lead in identifying psychological characteristics of Personality
seems to be essential and integral part of our procedure. These
characteristics can help us sketch the Personality Profiles of
individuals which can be further used to enhance existing Data
Mining Models.
The general plot of our model is depicted in Fig. 1. It can
be seen that at first behaviours are being extracted from the
economic data and then they are used to sketch the Personality
Profiles of the individuals. Then the Economic data together
with the Profiles are used to enrich the existing economic data
mining process in order to discover complicated patterns of
economic behaviour. The role of economic data here is
twofold, posing as the traditional framework in which
economic Data Mining is performed and as an alternative
source of extraction of Personality’s characteristics, in case the
latter are not available.
In this paper we propose a method of implementing the part
of our model that is related with the mining of Behavioural
Groups by utilizing traditional Data Mining techniques. More
specifically we perform clustering on a socio economic dataset
provided by the Consumer Credit Counseling Service which
includes demographic information and financial, debt and
expenditure details. Our intuition is that information about how
clients decide to spend their money together with their financial
and debt details hold significant information about the

Figure 1 model of incorporating personality information into data
mining methods

preferences of the clients and that with the appropriate
procedure we may discover different behaviours among users.
Our goal is to discover these different behaviours by using
traditional clustering algorithms to cluster clients in different
Behavioural Groups. In addition to this, we provide a novel
method of Personality Profiling from alternative data sources
by utilizing the ratings of Selfishness, provided by 52
Psychology students for expenditure attributes of the dataset to
characterize the Behavioural Groups.
We show that mining behaviours is possible by using
simple data mining techniques to partition people regarding
their expenditure and eventually identify patterns in people’s
expenditure. Furthermore we propose a simple method to
associate these Behavioural Groups with the Selfish or non
Selfish aspects of Personality. Despite its drawbacks our work
reveals a novel way to extract psychological characteristics of
Personality through static socio economic data. The findings of
this work can encourage more sophisticated research on
Personality Profiling through mining socio economic data and
in a greater extent using these profiles in order to power up our
economic Data Mining models in extracting and interpreting
patterns of economic behaviours more accurately and precisely.
The rest of the paper is organized as following. In section 2
the related work is discussed, in section 3 the details of our data
and selfish scores are presented and in section 4 we describe
our proposed framework for Behavioural Group mining in
detail, proposing a way to characterize the clusters as markers
of Selfish or non Selfish behaviour. In section 5 we analyze the
results of our Cluster analysis and Selfishness characterization.
Finally in section 6 we conclude our work and we present our
thoughts about the future steps of our research.
II.

RELATED WORK

Similar work to our effort in extracting personality
information from economic datasets exists in bibliography in
many Psychology and Economic articles. The majority of them
though adopt a procedure of extracting Personality Information
that includes additionally information that is gathered through
questionnaires and experiments with well known economic
games. Our approach on the other hand tries to extract
behaviours that can be associated with Personality traits
through the application of data mining techniques exclusively
on economic data without using this information that is rarely
given in datasets from real world applications. A very
interesting and innovative overview of this work is provided by

[1] and [4] where they present models to measure Personality
within economic context and they show how the models from
Economics can benefit from the models of Psychology and
vice versa. In particular, in [4] the authors state that the
economic modeling of preferences would benefit from the
application of psychometric principles and that Personality
Information can provide alternative ways of research in
Economics, introducing a theoretical background of explaining
anti-social traits, an area of Personality Psychology that was
undermined by traditional economic analyses. Although the
models that are discussed are very different from the
perspective of data mining, their results can be used to provide
a better insight of the data and guide our data mining
procedures or even enhance them.
From a computer science perspective, Behaviour
Informatics defined in [6], offer a way to mine behaviours from
the data in order to provide a deep understanding of
behaviours. In this work a new framework is proposed in order
to transform the data properly and then a general algorithm is
provided in order to extract behaviours. In addition to this the
significance of this in business intelligence and in credit
estimation is highlighted. The proposed framework is very
complicated and it can be applied mainly on activity data,
where an action can lead to a result and thus a relationship with
goals and motives can be defined. This is very different from
the case of socio economic data as the information that is
available there does not include actions and objects of the
actions. However the idea behind this approach can be very
useful, especially in the future of my research, as it provides a
method of transforming the existing data into similarly
behavioural data by including into them, principles from the
theory of Personality Psychology.
The same basic idea is demonstrated in [10] where a mining
approach similar to A-priori is performed in stock market data
in order to find peculiarity groups. This is achieved by first
transforming the stock market data in day by day behavioural
datasets and then applying a mining algorithm on this data. The
novelty of this work can give an example of how to transform
the data in appropriate way in order to power up the procedure
of mining the data. However, the stock market data are similar
to activity data and thus this idea cannot be applied in the same
way to our data. Besides this, their application is very specific
whereas our model aims to be more general and can be applied
in more datasets and not only in stock market data. A very
interesting work is described in [9], where an innovative
procedure is introduced, that performs data mining upon credit
rating data in order to classify credit holders in good bad. Their
work utilizes the nearest subspace method in order to achieve a
2 class classification.
Finally, the field of Behavior mining introduced in [11] can
provide some interesting and innovative ideas about how we
can proceed with the construction of our model, depicted in Fig
1. In more detail, [11] defines a new field of Data Mining,
namely Behavior Mining, in which the semantics of the data
should be taken into consideration. By taking advantage of the
semantics encapsulated within the data we will be one step
closer to achieve our goal in discovering valuable knowledge
in economics. Therefore, by including principles from
Personality Psychology as semantics to our Data Mining

techniques can help us improve our analysis in the field of
Economy. Although as a goal of our research is to build a
model that will combine additional information that derives
from the principles of Personality Psychology with Data
Mining techniques and methods, our difference with the
Behavior Mining approach is that we are unsure whether this
information should be necessarily included as semantics to our
data. Moreover we think that the proposed framework of
behavioural data in [11] to encapsulate the semantics in our
data, increases the complexity of the analysis and it cancels out
traditional and powerful methods of Data Mining which
perform on simple data and not complex.
Despite the fact that all these Behaviour mining methods
present innovative ideas, especially for the future part of our
research they suffer from certain limitations. First of all, they
are data specific, being able to be applied exclusively in
activity data and not on other kinds of data. In addition to this,
the mining of Behaviours in these models is not being
presented as part of Personality Profiling process and neither
they are associated with Personality Psychology. Therefore,
our method of mining Behaviours from socio economic data
and associating them with aspects of Personality Psychology
poses as a novel process of Behaviour mining and Personality
Profiling on alternative data sources.
III.

were a lot of issues to address before clustering the data
regarding missing values, nominal attributes, duplicates,
correlations and a decision to make about whether or not we
should take into account the time parameter. The issues that
came to our notice and the actions we took in order to deal with
them are the following:


Missing Values. Although the percentage of
missing values is around 18% of the data, they
tend to appear in the same clients for the same
type of categories. With this in mind we were able
to delete the specific clients with regard to the
attributes we were interested and move to a
smaller dataset with a very small percentage of
missing values. In the case of using all attributes
we were able to reduce the size of the dataset to
approximately 37000 with a percentage of 0.8%
missing values. This small proportion of missing
values gave us the opportunity to simply replace
them with the mean in case of numeric attributes
or the mode for the nominal without worrying
about the impact on the cluster analysis as their
number is very small.



Duplicates. In the CCCS dataset it was noticed
that there were entries with the same client id.
These clients, approximately 5000, were removed
because they would be considered as noise to our
further analysis.



Time parameter. The CCCS dataset contains the
attributes regarding the month and the year the
client contacted the service to seek advice. We
decided to disregard the time parameter from our
analysis since the date of contact is irrelevant to
the purposes of our analysis, assuming that the
characteristics of clients are stable over time.
Although this assumption is valid for almost all
attributes except debt, which as stated in [3] is
being reduced in a steady rate over time, we
decided to not to consider the time parameter after
all because it needs a time series analysis which is
very different from the purposes of this work.



Correlations. Using the Pearson’s coefficient all
the correlated pair of attributes were identified
and each attribute of each pair with coefficient
more than 0.95 or less than -0.95 was removed as
it does not contribute anything more than its
paired attributes. So attributes like mortdebt and
the cpcat - cpsc were removed as they were
correlated to hvalue and udcat – udsc respectively.



Nominal Attributes. Despite the fact that most of
the attributes within the dataset are numeric there
are 6 attributes that fall in the demographic
category that are nominal. Due to the fact that
clustering requires the data to be in numeric
format in order to be applied we decided to
transform these attributes to numeric by simply
assigning a numeric value to each type. However
treating nominal values as numeric is just an

DATA PRESENTATION

A. Data Analysis
The CCCS dataset, introduced in [3], is a socioeconomic
crossectional dataset based on the data provided by the
Consumer Credit Counseling Service. In its 58 attributes it
contains information about 70000 clients who contacted the
service between the years 2004 and 2008 in order to require
advice about how they can overcome their debts. The
information was gathered through interviews when each client
first contacted the service and it varies from standard
demographics to financial details, expenditure details and debt
details.
Based on this fact we can see that the 58 attributes of the
dataset are organized to more general categories of attributes
like the above. They form a sort of hierarchy which can be seen
in Fig. 2. Here the CCCS dataset is splitter into 6 big
categories, Demographics, Debt, Assets, Expenditure, Debt
Details and Income. This is similar with the above with the
only difference being that Financial details are split into
Income and Assets and the information about Debt is split into
Debt Details and Unsecured Debts. Because of the importance
Debt and Income possess, it was better to be viewed separately
in this abstraction and not as part of other categories. That is
the reason that attribute Income is linked directly to the CCCS
dataset. The rest of the attributes falls into the 5 subcategories
of the CCCS dataset. The description of the important
attributes of the dataset is given in the table1.
B. Data preprocessing
Before moving to the cluster analysis of the data, it is
always important to analyze it, find inconsistencies within the
data and offer a way to deal with them. In CCCS dataset there

Figure 3 Boxplots of Assets and Debt

Figure 4 Boxplots of expenditure and income

Figure 2 The structure of CCCS data

oversimplification while these two types of data
hold significant differences. A better way would
be to transform in an appropriate way as numeric
in order to contribute valuable information to our
further analysis.


Occupation Attribute. Lastly although this
attribute is considered to contain valuable
information which is often associated with
Psychological Information we had to remove it
from our cluster analysis as it contains a very
large number of missing values, nearly half of the
size of clients. Similarly with the previous case a
good way to transform this in a numeric attribute
that will contain valuable information is required,
because this attribute is also found among the
nominal ones.

C. Data Description of CCCS attributes
In the Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 we can see the boxplots of type of
financial, debt and expenditure attributes. These boxplots
provide a better insight of the data of CCCS revealing
important information about the statistics of these attributes.
The first thing we can notice in these boxplots is the extremely
large magnitude of attributes like hvalue, udebt and mordebt
and the relatively large magnitude, compared to their type’s
values, of income and housing. These attributes will play an
important role in our Cluster analysis because of the large
magnitude of their values. Something that we should notice is
that they may contain outliers like houses with value of 300000
pounds as we can see in the Fig. 3. These observations are very
crucial for the cluster analysis that it will be conducted on this
dataset as it will help us explain the output of the clustering
methods.

Since our aim is to discover Behavioural Groups of clients
in this dataset taking advantage of the information that is
enclosed in expenditure types, financial and debt details, we
need a clustering method that will produce clusters that are
well separated regarding these attributes and that will
potentially define groups of people with different habits,

Variables
Name
pid in
Dataset

udebt
mortdebt
hvalue
finasset
carvalue
mortterm
clothing
travel
food
services
housing
motoring
leisure
priority
sundries
sempspend
other
income
udcat udsc
cpcat-cpsc
tcat-tcsc

IV.

CLUSTERING FRAMEWORK

Table 1 Description of the important attributes
Description

individual identifier
total value of unsecured debt
total value of mortgage debt
total value all housing owned
total value of financial assets
resale value of car
months left to pay on mortgage
total monthly spending on clothing
total monthly spending on travel
total monthly spending on food
total monthly spending on utilities
total monthly spending on housing
total monthly spending on motoring
total monthly spending on leisure
total monthly spending on priority debt
total monthly spending on sundries
total monthly self-employed spending
total other spending
total monthly income
variables recording balances on unsecured debts for:
catalogues, collection agency, credit card, ge capital,
overdraft, personal loan, store card, other
variables recording contracted monthly payments for
each of above, where applicable
term remaining on repayments for each of above,
where applicable

Figure 3 Boxplots of Assets and Debt

preferences and characteristics.
For this reason we decided to apply traditional partitioning
clustering algorithms on this dataset. Due to the huge size of
the CCCS dataset our choices were limited to the application of
K-means and Clara, which were the only partitioning clustering
algorithm that could be executed in the R environment where
the clustering analysis took place.
K-means partitions the observations into clusters based on
the distance of each observation from the center of the cluster.
Further information of this algorithm can be found in [7]. Clara
on the other hand, introduced on [5], is appropriate for
clustering large applications. It is a modification of PAM
algorithm that performs clustering on a sample of data. In
similar way with PAM it uses the dissimilarity matrix in order
to cluster similar observations around medoids, which here are
cluster members and not the centre of the clusters.
Both Clara and Kmeans require the number of clusters and
the initial medoids or centroids respectively as input. That
means that in our case, where the optimal number of
Behavioural Groups is not known beforehand, we should
perform an extensive search in order to find the optimal
clusters that are well separated and compact and at the same
time partition the clients with regards their expenditure types.
Our intuition was that finding the optimal clusters that partition
the clients in the best way, will help us detect well defined
Behavioural Groups.

The framework was implemented in R with the help of
built in functions. In order to overcome the random results
obtained by the initial distribution of centroids and medoids, as
Kmeans’ and Clara’s outcomes are dependant in great extent to
the initialization of their centroids and medoids, we iterated
both algorithms 100 times for each given number of clusters
and we kept the best results each tune. However we have to be
careful with the results of Kmeans because the algorithm is
susceptible to outliers and extreme values and our dataset
contains few of them that were revealed during the Data
Description in the previous section.
Although our framework is a simplified approach in means
of finding the optimal clusters, it provides a good estimation of
the optimal clusters by utilizing, validation indices and visual
inspection. This way it achieves discovering well defined
clusters, which is the medium to discover well separated
Behavioural Groups.
Finally, having extracted the Behavioural Groups we used
the Selfishness ratings provided by 52 students of the
Psychology department of University Of Nottingham who
rated each Expenditure attribute with two scores from 1 to 7 in
order to associate the extracted Behavioural Groups with the
Selfish aspect of Personality. The first score indicates how
Experiments
A

B

C

All attributes

After removing
correlated, time related
and noisy attributes

After further removing
the debt details

Silhouette Criterion & Calinski
Index
Visual Inspection: Biplots &
Boxplots

Clusters
through
agreement

Figure 5 Methodology of finding the optimal clusters

EVALUATION

For this reason, we designed a process of approaching
optimality, which is visualized in Fig 5. As it can be seen we
experimented with different subsets of attributes stages, namely
stages A, B and C that are depicted in the 3 boxes in the Fig. 5,
and for each stage of experiments, we performed Kmeans and
Clara for given clusters starting from 2 until 20. Then we
utilized the Silhouette criterion [8] for the case of Clara and
Calinski Index [2] for the case of Kmeans to help us identify
good clusterings, since both of them return a value indicating
how well separated and compact the clusters are. However
since the best values of Silhouette and Calinski index do not
necessarily indicate the optimal numbers of clusters we used
the visual inspection of clusters by boxplots and biplots in
order to analyze the outcome of the clustering and gain a better
understanding of the clusters are defined. The extraction of
Behavioural Groups was based on the agreement of all the

Figure 4 Boxplots of expenditure and income

evaluation measures we used. Finally by inspecting the values
of Silhouette and Calinski, combined with our visual analysis
we were able to get an indication about what the optimal
number of clusters would be.

strongly associated is the attribute with Selfish personality and
the second one indicates how strongly is the attribute
associated with Non Selfish Personality.

V.

RESULTS

A. Biplots
The results of applying the clustering framework on the
three stages are depicted in the biplots of Table 2. The biplots
are the depiction of clusters on the space that is created by the
first two components of Principal Component Analysis. The
clusters that are depicted are the optimal that were selected by
the Silhoutte Criterion for the case of Clara and the Calinski
Index for the case of Kmeans.
In case of all attributes (Stage A) Clara returned 1 big
cluster and 5 smaller and non distinct. In similar way we can
see that Kmeans produced 1 big distinct cluster (blue) and 6
smaller and non distinct. Within the 6 smaller clusters are
included 2 clusters with just one member proving Kmeans
weakness against extreme values and outliers. Similar clusters
were observed in all outcomes of Kmeans in experiments of
stages B and C.
When we remove the unwanted attributes defined in Stage
B, Clara continues to produce one big cluster and 3 smaller that
are quite more distinct than before whereas Kmeans returns 9
clusters 3 of them (blue, green and ping) are well separated.
Finally in stage C, after the further removal of debt details
Clara returns 2 well distinct clusters whereas Kmeans produces

13 clusters, of which one is big and well separated.
Removing further attributes and categories of attributes
than those defined in stages A,B,C in Fig. 5, resulted in Clara
being stabilized at returning the same two clusters as the
optimal like it did in stage C and Kmeans producing a large
number of clusters as optimal. That means that the attributes
removed after the stage C caused the Kmeans and Clara to
stick to extreme values when proposing the optimal clusters.
Analyzing these results we can understand that the best
clusters can be found within the B and C experiments.
Furthermore Kmeans’ weakness against extreme values and
outliers which was validated in all our examples can be
handled with the scaling of the data. Clara on the other hand
does not need such measure. Moreover, we can spot that in all
our results there is a clear big and distinct cluster.
Unfortunately we are unable to check the expression of the
attributes in the big cluster as well in the rest of the clusters
depicted by biplots as the majority of the clusters are so small
and no safe example can be made from the biplots. That is the
reason why we have to check the boxplots of these attributes
and especially of the expenditure and financial attributes to see
if they are overrepresented in specific dusters. Finally by
inspecting the values for each case of clusters returned from the
application of clustering framework on all the results from the
experiments we could infer that the best number of clusters lies
between the cases of 4 and 6.
B. Inspection of Boxplots
By studying the boxplots of each attribute for the clusters
returned from the above clusterings we were able to spot

Table 2Biplots of the clusters returned by Clara and Kmeans for stages A, B and C

KMEANS

CLARA

STAGE A

STAGE B

STAGE C

which ones are overrepresented inside the clusters and which
are underrepresented. The results are aggregated in the tables
3, 4 and 5 where for each cluster the attributes that are
overrepresented and the attributes that underrepresented are
being indicated by the (+) the (-) sign respectively. Studying
carefully these results by checking the attributes that
characterize each cluster, we can see that that there are some
common clusters among the different clusterings. These
common clusters are the result of the agreement between the
evaluation measures we used and they define 6 stable
Behavioural Groups of people. The 6 Behavioural Groups are
indicated by the BG column in the tables and they identify the
following behaviours:
 Group 1: People who have expensive houses,
expensive assets and give a significant amount of
their expenditure to pay back their debt and to
other expenses.
 Group 2: People with low income and cheap cars
but who spend a lot of money in travelling.
 Group 3: People with expensive houses who like
to travel.
 Group 4: People with large income, not expensive
houses who spend a lot in all categories,
especially in the attributes priority, other and
motoring and non expensive houses.
 Group 5: People who are characterized by large
income and expensive assets.
 Group 6: People with large unsecured debts and
lots of expenses in travelling.

Table 3 Expression of attributes in clusters produced in stage A

Cluster
1

3

travel+

4

hvalue+,mordebt+

5

other+, motoring+,
priority+,income+,
udebt+, housing+,
hvalue-, mordebt-

C. Selfish/ Non Selfish Characterization
In an attempt to associate the Behavioural Groups we
discovered with aspects of Personality we processed the
Selfishness ratings in order to produce a ranking of the
expenditure attributes regarding how strongly are associated
with Selfish Personality. In order to that, we calculated for each

BG

Cluster

5

1

2

2

3

4

4

5
6

hvalue+,mordebt+,
income+,
motoring+

1
6

Clara
Expression
Of Markers

BG

incomeage+,
carvalue+,
hvalue+
hvalue+,
ndep+,
travel+

5

3

carvalue+,
income+,
motoring+

4

udebt+,
travel+
motoring+,
priority+,
carvalue+,
income+,
hvalue+

6

1

Table 4 Expression of attributes in clusters produced in stage B

Clus
ter
2

Apart from the 6 stable groups of people we can identify
through the clusters we can also see what characterizes the big
distinct cluster that are depicted by turquoise color (cluster 1)
in the biplots of Clara for stages A and B , by blue (cluster 3)
in Kmeans for stage A and by red (cluster 2) in Kmeans for
stage C. Inspecting the appropriate tables we can see that in 3
out of the 4 big clusters are characterized by the
overexpression of travel attribute. Also 3 out of 4 clusters, but
not the same 3, are characterized by low income. We can
understand how these two expressions of these attributes can
define a very large group of people and the fact that they don’t
agree in all 4 clusters may be a result of not perfect clustering.
However, the big cluster appears to belong to the 2nd group we
presented above in 3 of 4 cases.
Finally from the 6 different groups of people we identified
from our clusterings and from the fact that a lot of the clusters
in Kmeans, clusters 8-11, 12-13 in table 5, are characterized
by the same attributes, validates our observation that the best
number of clusters that contain the information we want and at
the same time they are compact and well separated that is
somewhere between 4 and 6 in the previous subsection.

Kmeans
Expression of
Markers
hvalue+,mordebt+,
carvalue+,
income+

3

5

6

7
8
9

Kmeans
Expression of
Markers
housing+,
income+,
other+,
priority+
udebt+,
other+,
priority+,
carvalueage+,
carvalue+,
income+
age+,
housing+,
carvalue+,
income+
hvalue+,trave
l+
hvalue+
travel+,
income-,
carvalue-

BG

Clara
Expression Of
Markers
age-, income-,
carvalue-, travel+

BG

2

hvalue+,travel+

3

3

age+, income+,
carvalue+, other+,
priority+

4

4

hvalue+, age+,
income+,
carvalue+

5

Clus
ter
1

4

5

2

5

3

2

attribute the mean of the first score (Selfish) and the mean of
the second score (Non Selfish) for all users. Then for each
attribute we subtracted its Non Selfish mean from the Selfish
mean and we got a weight of how strongly each attributes is
defining Selfish personality. Finally the weights were
normalized and ranked in descending order. The ranked
attributes with their final weights can be seen in the table 6 and
we can easily see that the attributes Leisure, Travel and Food

Table 5 Expression of attribuets in clusters produced in stage C

Kmeans

Clara

Clust
er

Expression of
Markers

BG

Clu
ster

2

income-, travel+,
hvalue-

2

1

carvalue+,
travel+, hvalue+

3

travel+

2

3
4
6

2

Expression
Of Markers
travel+,
udebt+
income+,ca
rvalue+,
priority+,h
value+

BG
6

VI.
1

carvalue+, travel+

7
8-11
1213

carvalue+,
income+,
priority+, hvalue+
carvalue+,
income+, hvalue+
carvalue+,
income+,other+,
priority+, hvalue+

1
5
1

are strongly associated with Selfish Personality while the
Priority attribute is related with Non Selfish personality.
Using this ranking we characterized the 5 of the 6
behavioural groups as Selfish and non – Selfish, based on the
overexpression of expenditure types. With a closer look at the
ranking of the expenditure attributes in table 2 we can see that
travel is strongly associated with Selfish personality while
priority is strongly associated with Non Selfish personality.
Using that information we can conclude that all of the clusters
that form the 2nd, 3rd and 6th groups reveal a sort of Selfish
behaviour while most of the clusters that form the 1st group
(5/6) and 4th group (3/4) are characterized by Non Selfish
behaviour. The Selfish Behavioural Groups are signified by the
black background in BG column in tables 3, 4 and 5 while the
Non Selfish by grey.
Our method of relating the cluster we extracted with Selfish
and non – Selfish behaviour is based on the judgments of 52
students of Psychology that rated the 9 expenditure attributes of
the dataset. This number is very small so as to indicate
different spending behaviours and to reveal aspects of
Personality. In addition to this 52 students is not a very big
sample in order to guarantee the reliability of these ratings and
our process of assessing and processing these ratins is not
elaborate enough. For these reasons it is not safe to conclude
that our findings reveal Selfish and non Selfish behaviour bat
rather that they indicate signs of these behaviours. Nevertheless
Table 6 Ranking of expenditure attributes towards selfishness

Selfish
Weight

0.99

Expenditure
Attribute
Self
Employed
Motoring

Food

0.88

Other

-0.42

Clothing

0.42

Housing

-0.54

Priority

-0.8

Expenditure
Attribute

Selfish
Weight

Leisure

1.53

Travel

-0.16
-0.20

the significance of these findings lies in the fact that our
method reveals a way to detect aspects of Personality in a socio
economic dataset assuming that the assuming that the
additional information someone can use is reliable and it is
processed and applied in a careful and sophisticated manner.
CONLCUSIONS AND FUTURE STEPS

In this paper we presented a way to extract behavioural
groups from a socio economic dataset, such as CCCS, by
using clustering methods. We linked these groups with Selfish
and Non Selfish personalities by using the evaluation for the
10 expenditure types from 52 students of the Psychology
department of the University of Nottingham.
Our findings demonstrate that it is possible to extract
information regarding the Personality of individuals from
similar datasets by using even simplistic data mining
techniques. Despite its simplicity we hope that it will
encourage the development of more sophisticated models to
extract Personality Information. We believe that the
information we extracted can be used to power up models that
will lead us in interpreting complicated economic behaviours.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank John Gathergood, lecturer in school
of economics for providing us the CCCS dataset and the 52
students of the Psychology Department for contributing
voluntarily in scoring the expenditures.
REFERENCES
M. Almlund, A. Duckworth, J. Heckman, and T. Kautz,”Personality
psychology and economics”, in Handbook of Economics Education, vol.
4, pp. 1- 178.
[2] R. B. Calinski, and J. Harabasz.”A dedrite method for cluster analysis”,
in Communications in Stastistics, 1, 1974, pp.1-27.
[3] R. Disney, and J. Gathergood,”Understanding consumer overindebtedness using counselling sector data: Scoping Study”, Report to
the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), University of
Nottingham, 2009.
[4] E. Ferguson, J. Heckman, and P. Corr, ”Personlity and economics:
overview and proposed framework,” in Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 2011, pp. 201-209.
[5] L. Kauffman, and P. J. Rousseeuw,”Findings groups in data-An
introduction to cluster analysis”, 1990.
[6] C. Longbing,”In-depth behavior understanding and use: The behavior
informatics approach” in Information Sciences, vol. 180, 2010, pp.30673085.
[7] S. P. Loyd,”Least square quantization in PCM”, in IEEE Transactions of
Information Theory, 28, 1982, pp. 129-137.
[8] P. J. Rousseeuw,”Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and
validation of cluster analysis ”, in Computational and Applied
Mathematics, 20, 1987, pp. 53-65.
[9] Z. Xiafoei, J. Wenhan, and S. Yong, “Credit risk evaluation by using
nearest subspace method”, International Conference of Computational
Science, pp 2449-2455.
[10] Y. Xiong, and Z. Yangyong, “Mining peculiarity groups in day by day
Behavioral Datasets ”, Ninth IEEE, International Conference on Data
Mining, 2009.
[11] C. Zhengxin, “From data mining to behavior mining” in International
Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 4, vol. 5, 2006,
pp.703-711.
[1]

