Suzy Moat Data Science Lab Behavioural Science, WBS

Suzy.Moat@wbs.ac.uk

Quantifying human behaviour with Internet data

The advantage of looking forward 1

Future Orientation Index 2010

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Future Orientation Index 2010 Suzy Moat & Tobias PreisBased on Preis, Moat, Stanley and Bishop (2012)

Ratio of Google searches for “2011” to searches for “2009” during 2010 for 45 countries

more Google searches for “2009” more Google searches for “2011”

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Future Orientation Index 2012 Suzy Moat & Tobias PreisBased on Preis, Moat, Stanley and Bishop (2012)

Ratio of Google searches for “2013” to searches for “2011” during 2012 for 45 countries

Richer countries look forward

Time with Weekly Granularity

Sear

ch V

olum

e

0

5

10

2008 2009 2010

0

5A B

“2008”“2007”

“2009” “2010” “2011”

“2009”

Future-Orientation Index

GD

P / C

apita

[10

4 USD

]

1

2

3

4

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

    Preis, Moat, Stanley &

Bishop (2012)

Featured by:

Photo: Perpetual Tourist

Anticipating market moves 2

Hypothetical strategy

week t

Moat et al. (2013); Preis et al. (2013)

number of Wikipedia page views

week t t-1 t-2 t-3

Moat et al. (2013); Preis et al. (2013) Hypothetical strategy

number of Wikipedia page views

Page views decreased: BUY stock

in week t+1

week t t-1 t-2 t-3

Moat et al. (2013); Preis et al. (2013) Hypothetical strategy

number of Wikipedia page views

Page views decreased: BUY stock

in week t+1

Page views increased: SELL stock

in week t+1 week t t-1 t-2 t-3

Moat et al. (2013); Preis et al. (2013) Hypothetical strategy

number of Wikipedia page views

Wikipedia: Dow Jones companies

Views data: significant difference

Moat, Curme, Avakian, Kenett,

Stanley & Preis (2013)

Featured by: Return [Std. Dev. of Random Strategies]

Den

sity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

−2 0 2

Wikipedia ViewsDJIA Companies

Wikipedia EditsDJIA Companies

RandomStrategy

Wikipedia: Financial topics Moat, Curme,

Avakian, Kenett, Stanley & Preis

(2013)

Featured by:

Views data: significant difference

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

−2 0 2Return [Std. Dev. of Random Strategies]

Den

sity

Wikipedia ViewsFinancial Topics

Wikipedia EditsFinancial Topics

RandomStrategy

Wikipedia: Actors and filmmakers? Moat, Curme,

Avakian, Kenett, Stanley & Preis

(2013)

Featured by:

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

−2 0 2Return [Std. Dev. of Random Strategies]

Den

sity

Wikipedia ViewsActors & Filmmakers

RandomStrategy

Views data: no significant difference

Random strategy mean + 2 sds

Random strategy mean + 1 sd

return (random strategy sds)

0

1

2

-1

“debt” “culture”

How Google keywords perform

Preis, Moat & Stanley (2013)

Random strategy mean + 2 sds

Random strategy mean + 1 sd

return (random strategy sds)

0

1

2

-1

“debt” “culture”

“stocks”

“credit”

“garden” “train”

Preis, Moat & Stanley (2013)

How Google keywords perform

# occurrences in FT

# hits on Google

Returns significantly correlated with indicator

of financial relevance

Financial relevance

Random strategy mean + 2 sds

Random strategy mean + 1 sd

return (random strategy sds)

0

1

2

-1

Preis, Moat & Stanley (2013)

How Google keywords perform

debt

money

crisis

internet

technology

money

debt

Curme, Preis, Stanley & Moat (2014)

What is searched for before falls?

55 groups of search terms

Business and politics most related

Curme, Preis, Stanley & Moat (2014)

What is searched for before falls? Cumulative Returns (%)

-100 0 100 200Random Strategy

Politics IBusiness

Photographers as sensors 3

Flickr and tourist numbers

Barchiesi, Moat, Alis, Bishop & Preis (under review)

Seresinhe, Preis & Moat (under review)

Scenicness and wellbeing

Photo: Tom Richardson

Scenicness and wellbeing

A

D

Average percentageof greenspace

0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.94 0.96 0.99

Average scenic rating

1 2.2 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 8

POO

R H

EALT

HG

REEN

SPA

CE

SCEN

ICN

ESS

Average rates of poor health (SMR)

0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 3.2

London

Birmingham

Manchester

Newcastle

Liverpool Sheffield

B C

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

All areas Urban Suburban Rural

Prob

ablit

y of

the

mod

el g

iven

the

data

(AIC

w)

ModelScenicness onlyGreenspace onlyScenicness and Greenspace

Seresinhe, Preis & Moat (under review)

Scenicness and wellbeing

Seresinhe, Preis & Moat (under review)

A

D

Average percentageof greenspace

0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.94 0.96 0.99

Average scenic rating

1 2.2 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 8

POO

R H

EALT

HG

REEN

SPA

CE

SCEN

ICN

ESS

Average rates of poor health (SMR)

0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 3.2

London

Birmingham

Manchester

Newcastle

Liverpool Sheffield

B C

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

All areas Urban Suburban Rural

Prob

ablit

y of

the

mod

el g

iven

the

data

(AIC

w)

ModelScenicness onlyGreenspace onlyScenicness and Greenspace

Scenicness and wellbeing

Seresinhe, Preis & Moat (under review)

A

D

Average percentageof greenspace

0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.94 0.96 0.99

Average scenic rating

1 2.2 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 8

POO

R H

EALT

HG

REEN

SPA

CE

SCEN

ICN

ESS

Average rates of poor health (SMR)

0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 3.2

London

Birmingham

Manchester

Newcastle

Liverpool Sheffield

B C

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

All areas Urban Suburban Rural

Prob

ablit

y of

the

mod

el g

iven

the

data

(AIC

w)

ModelScenicness onlyGreenspace onlyScenicness and Greenspace

Self reported health is better in

more scenic locations

Scenicness and wellbeing

A

D

Average percentageof greenspace

0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.94 0.96 0.99

Average scenic rating

1 2.2 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 8

POO

R H

EALT

HG

REEN

SPA

CE

SCEN

ICN

ESS

Average rates of poor health (SMR)

0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 3.2

London

Birmingham

Manchester

Newcastle

Liverpool Sheffield

B C

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

All areas Urban Suburban Rural

Prob

ablit

y of

the

mod

el g

iven

the

data

(AIC

w)

ModelScenicness onlyGreenspace onlyScenicness and Greenspace

Seresinhe, Preis & Moat (under review)

Scenicness and wellbeing

A

D

Average percentageof greenspace

0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.94 0.96 0.99

Average scenic rating

1 2.2 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 8

POO

R H

EALT

HG

REEN

SPA

CE

SCEN

ICN

ESS

Average rates of poor health (SMR)

0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 3.2

London

Birmingham

Manchester

Newcastle

Liverpool Sheffield

B C

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

All areas Urban Suburban Rural

Prob

ablit

y of

the

mod

el g

iven

the

data

(AIC

w)

ModelScenicness onlyGreenspace onlyScenicness and Greenspace

A

D

Average percentageof greenspace

0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.94 0.96 0.99

Average scenic rating

1 2.2 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 8

POO

R H

EALT

HG

REEN

SPA

CE

SCEN

ICN

ESS

Average rates of poor health (SMR)

0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 3.2

London

Birmingham

Manchester

Newcastle

Liverpool Sheffield

B C

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

All areas Urban Suburban Rural

Prob

ablit

y of

the

mod

el g

iven

the

data

(AIC

w)

ModelScenicness onlyGreenspace onlyScenicness and Greenspace

Seresinhe, Preis & Moat (under review)

Scenicness and wellbeing

A

D

Average percentageof greenspace

0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.94 0.96 0.99

Average scenic rating

1 2.2 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 8

POO

R H

EALT

HG

REEN

SPA

CE

SCEN

ICN

ESS

Average rates of poor health (SMR)

0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 3.2

London

Birmingham

Manchester

Newcastle

Liverpool Sheffield

B C

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

All areas Urban Suburban Rural

Prob

ablit

y of

the

mod

el g

iven

the

data

(AIC

w)

ModelScenicness onlyGreenspace onlyScenicness and Greenspace

Seresinhe, Preis & Moat (under review)

Data from the Internet may help us measure and even predict

human behaviour

Suzy.Moat@wbs.ac.uk

@suzymoat