BaumeisterR. F., VohsK. D., & FunderD. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self–reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745–6916.2007.00051.x
2.
BlakeA. B., LeeD., de la RosaR., & ShermanR. A. (in press). Wearable cameras, machine vision, and big data analytics: Insights into people and the places they go. In WooS. E., TayL., & ProctorR. (Eds.), Big data methods for psychological research: New horizons and challenges. APA Books.
3.
BleidornW., & HopwoodC. J. (2019). Using machine learning to advance personality assessment and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23, 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318772990
4.
BredoE. (2006). Conceptual confusion and educational psychology. In AlexanderP. A., & WinneP. H. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
Chamorro–PremuzicT., AkhtarR., WinsboroughD., & ShermanR. A. (2017). The datafication of talent: How technology is advancing the science of human potential at work. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.04.007
6.
CronbachL. J., & MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
7.
DörendahlJ., & GreiffS. (2020). Are the machines taking over? Benefits and challenges of using algorithms in (short) scale construction. Editorial. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
8.
FriedE. I. (2020, February 7). Lack of theory building and testing impedes progress in the factor and network literature. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zg84s. In press at Psychological Inquiry.
9.
FurrR. M. (2009a). Personality psychology as a truly behavioral science. European Journal of Personality, 23, 369–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.724
10.
FurrR. M. (2009b). The study of behavior in personality psychology: Meaning, importance, and measurement. European Journal of Personality, 23, 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.726
HarariG. M., LaneN. D., WangR., CrosierB. S., CampbellA. T., & GoslingS. D. (2016). Using smartphones to collect behavioral data in psychological science: Opportunities, practical considerations, and challenges. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 838–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616650285
13.
IlminiW. M. K. S., & FernandoT. G. I. (2017). Computational personality traits assessment: A review. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems (ICIIS), 1–6 IEEE.
14.
JacobucciR., & GrimmK. J. (2020). Machine learning and psychological research: The unexplored effect of measurement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 809–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620902467
15.
JankowskyK., OlaruG., & SchroedersU. (2020). Compiling measurement invariant short scales in cross–cultural personality assessment using ant colony optimization. European Journal of Personality, 34, 470–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2260
16.
KernM. L., EichstaedtJ. C., SchwartzH. A., DziurzynskiL., UngarL. H., StillwellD. J., KosinskiM., … SeligmanM. E. (2014). The online social self: An open vocabulary approach to personality. Assessment, 21, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514104
17.
KosinskiM., StillwellD., & GraepelT. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 5802–5805.
18.
KosinskiM., WangY., LakkarajuH., & LeskovecJ. (2016). Mining big data to extract patterns and predict real–life outcomes. Psychological Methods, 21, 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000105
19.
MahmoodiJ., LeckeltM., van ZalkM. W. H., GeukesK., & BackM. D. (2017). Big Data approaches in social and behavioral science: Four key trade–offs and a call for integration. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.07.001
20.
MontagC., EbsteinR. P., JawinskiP., & MarkettS. (2020). Molecular genetics in psychology and personality neuroscience: On candidate genes, genome wide scans, and new research strategies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 118, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.06.020
21.
MontagC., & ElhaiJ. D. (2019). A new agenda for personality psychology in the digital age?Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.045
22.
NaveC. S., FeeneyM. G., & FurrR. M. (2018). Behavioral observation in the study of personality and individual differences. In ShackelfordT., & Ziegler–HillV. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences (pp. 317–340), 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23.
OlaruG., SchroedersU., HartungJ., & WilhelmO. (2019). Ant colony optimization and local weighted structural equation modeling. A tutorial on novel item and person sampling procedures for personality research. European Journal of Personality, 33, 400–419.
24.
OnnelaJ. P., & RauchS. L. (2016). Harnessing smartphone–based digital phenotyping to enhance behavioral and mental health. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41, 1691–1696. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2016.7
RobinaughD., HaslbeckJ. M. B., RyanO., FriedE. I., & WaldorpL. (2020, March 25). Invisible hands and fine calipers: A call to use formal theory as a toolkit for theory construction. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ugz7y
27.
ScheelA.M., TiokhinL., IsagerP.M., & LakensD. (2020, in press). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
28.
SeebothA., & MõttusR. (2018). Successful explanations start with accurate descriptions: Questionnaire items as personality markers for more accurate predictions. European Journal of Personality, 32, 186–201.
29.
StachlC., AuQ., SchoedelR., GoslingS. D., HarariG. M., BuschekD., VölkelS. T., … HussmannH. (2020). Predicting personality from patterns of behavior collected with smartphones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 17680–17687.
TraceyT. J. G. (2020). We can do that? Technological advances in interest assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 28, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072719879910
32.
VinciarelliA., & MohammadiG. (2014). A Survey of Personality Computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 5, 273–291.
33.
VinciarelliA., & MohammadiG. (2014). A survey of personality computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 5, 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2014.2330816
34.
WooS. E., TayL., & ProctorR. W. (Eds) (2020). Big data in psychological research. American Psychological Association10.1037/0000193–000.
35.
WrightA. G. C. (2014). Current directions in personality science and the potential for advances through computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 5, 292–296. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2014.2332331
YarkoniT., & WestfallJ. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393
38.
YouyouW., KosinskiM., & StillwellD. (2015). Computer–based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 1036–1040.
39.
ZieglerM. (2014). Stop and state your intentions! Let's not forget the ABC of test construction. Editorial. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 239–242.