## 5 Results
### Feature Analysis
#### 5.1.4 Identifying Useful LIWC Dimensions  
While the results of predictions that utilize correlating LIWC dimensions gave promising results for predicting certain traits, it was only when paired with the previously computed MBTI/Enneagram predictions in the feature set that the results improved over baseline. This signals that, despite the LIWC features being an efficient indicator of personality traits, it is only when the relationship between the multiple personality models is leveraged that they become the most effective. This is especially apparent for the **Conscientiousness** trait, which had some of the worst results without the MBTI/Enneagram predictions in the feature set but ended up outperforming the baseline results when predictions of the type-based personality models were reintroduced into the feature set. It is worth noting, however, that, due to a large amount of LIWC dimensions correlating with several MBTI types, that the potential benefit \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Features** & **Openness** & **Consient.** & **Extroversion** & **Agreeableness** & **Neuroticism** \\ \hline _n-grams_ +... & & & & & \\ Introverted Correlating LIWC & 0.229 & 0.148 & 0.321 & 0.212 & 0.249 \\ Intuitive Correlating LIWC & 0.232 & 0.159 & 0.324 & 0.230 & 0.238 \\ Thinking Correlating LIWC & 0.216 & 0.150 & 0.340 & 0.203 & 0.241 \\ Perceiving Correlating LIWC & 0.228 & 0.154 & 0.319 & 0.216 & 0.243 \\ All MBTI Types Correlating LIWC & 0.214 & 0.150 & 0.330 & 0.206 & 0.237 \\ \hline _n-grams_ + MBTI/Enne &... & & & & \\ Introverted Correlating LIWC & 0.234 & **0.274** & 0.379 & 0.258 & 0.279 \\ Intuitive Correlating LIWC & 0.239 & **0.283** & 0.384 & **0.272** & 0.266 \\ Thinking Correlating LIWC & 0.221 & 0.273 & **0.389** & **0.286** & **0.298** \\ Perceiving Correlating LIWC & 0.235 & **0.274** & 0.386 & 0.249 & 0.282 \\ All MBTI Types Correlating LIWC & 0.227 & 0.271 & 0.382 & 0.253 & **0.289** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: The Pearson correlation coefficient between the actual Big Five traits and the ones predicted using combinations of _n_-grams, MBTI/Enne. predictions and various LIWC dimensions are divided in sets based on which MBTI type they correlate with. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Introverted** & **Intuitive** & **Thinking** & **Perceiving** \\ \hline SemiC & 0.011 & 0.009 & 0.021 \({}^{*}\) & \(-\)0.006 \\ sexual & \(-\)0.058 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.007 & \(-\)0.051 \({}^{**}\) & 0.029 \({}^{**}\) \\ shehe & \(-\)0.072 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.038 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.130 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.036 \({}^{**}\) \\ Sixlr & 0.014 & 0.075 \({}^{**}\) & 0.128 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.016 \\ social & \(-\)0.127 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.009 & \(-\)0.145 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.051 \({}^{**}\) \\ space & \(-\)0.020 & \(-\)0.008 & 0.044 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.047 \({}^{**}\) \\ swear & \(-\)0.049 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.026 \({}^{*}\) & 0.055 \({}^{**}\) & 0.086 \({}^{**}\) \\ tentat & 0.034 \({}^{**}\) & 0.017 & 0.001 & 0.031 \({}^{**}\) \\ they & 0.011 & 0.015 & 0.069 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.045 \({}^{**}\) \\ time & 0.013 & \(-\)0.052 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.118 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.059 \({}^{**}\) \\ verb & \(-\)0.046 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.025 \({}^{*}\) & \(-\)0.127 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.009 \\ WC & 0.006 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.007 & 0.070 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.023 \({}^{*}\) \\ we & \(-\)0.066 \({}^{**}\) & 0.030 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.059 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.023 \({}^{*}\) \\ work & \(-\)0.018 & \(-\)0.017 & 0.147 \({}^{**}\) & \(-\)0.068 \({}^{**}\) \\ WPS & 0.020 & 0.023 \({}^{*}\) & 0.044 \({}^{**}\) & 0.040 \({}^{**}\) \\ you & \(-\)0.066 \({}^{**}\) & 0.020 & \(-\)0.025 \({}^{*}\) & \(-\)0.030 \({}^{**}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \({}^{*}\) when (\(p<\) 0.05) and \({}^{**}\) when (\(p<\) 0.01).  
\end{table} 
Table 11: _Cont._of certain psycholinguistic features are reduced by the sudden increase in the number of features.