Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Behavioural Data Science
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- Reviews
- The Cambridge Handbook of Behavioural Data Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part IIntroduction to Behavioural Data Science
- 1History of Behavioural Data Science
- 2Overview of Behavioural Data Science
- 3Behavioural Data Science
- Part IIHuman Behaviour
- Part IIIAlgorithmic Behaviour
- Part IVSystems and Culture
- Part VApplications
- Part VIConcluding Remarks
- Main Abbreviations and Acronyms
- Glossary
- References
2 - Overview of Behavioural Data Science
from Part I - Introduction to Behavioural Data Science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 May 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Behavioural Data Science
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- Reviews
- The Cambridge Handbook of Behavioural Data Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part IIntroduction to Behavioural Data Science
- 1History of Behavioural Data Science
- 2Overview of Behavioural Data Science
- 3Behavioural Data Science
- Part IIHuman Behaviour
- Part IIIAlgorithmic Behaviour
- Part IVSystems and Culture
- Part VApplications
- Part VIConcluding Remarks
- Main Abbreviations and Acronyms
- Glossary
- References
Summary
This chapter provides an overview of Behavioural Data Science and categorises it into three strands: Human Behaviour, Algorithmic Behaviour and Systems Behaviour. The Human Behaviour strand seeks to understand and predict human behaviour using large datasets in a wide variety of applications. The Algorithmic Behaviour strand seeks to improve the performance of algorithms by studying how algorithms behave as well as how they process data about humans and systems, predicting future patterns. The Systems Behaviour strand studies how humans and algorithms collaborate in complex systems. The chapter also highlights the challenges and limitations of Behavioural Data Science, including ethical considerations and potential biases in data interpretation. It concludes with a discussion of the future of Behavioural Data Science and its potential for further advancements.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Behavioural Data Science , pp. 24 - 43Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
Amalberti, R. (2013). Navigating safety: Necessary compromises and trade-offs. Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-6549-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Fulda, N., Gubler, J. R., Rytting, C. & Wingate, D. (2023). Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples. Political Analysis, 31(3), 337–351.10.1017/pan.2023.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barocas, S., Hardt, M. & Narayanan, A. (2023). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K. W., Zou, J. Y., Saligrama, V. & Kalai, A. T. (2016). Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06520.Google Scholar
Buolamwini, J. & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, 77–91.Google Scholar
Chancellor, S., Kalantidis, Y., Pater, J., De Choudhury, M. & Shamma, D. A. (2021). Multimodal classification of mental health content on social media. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 28(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S. & Amodei, D. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03741.Google Scholar
Epstein, J. M. (2009). Modelling to contain pandemics. Nature, 460(7256), 687.10.1038/460687aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. S. B. T. & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.10.1177/1745691612460685CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., et al. (2021). Datasheets for Datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86–92.10.1145/3458723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardt, M., Price, E. & Srebro, N. (2016). Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29.Google Scholar
Imbens, G. W. & Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139025751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, G. & Pogrebna, G. (2024a). Digital twins can help you make better strategic decisions. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2024/09/digital-twins-can-help-you-make-better-strategic-decisions (last accessed 30 October 2025).Google Scholar
Kenny, G. & Pogrebna, G. (2024b). Digital twins aren’t just for big businesses. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2024/10/digital-twins-arent-just-for-big-businesses (last accessed 30 October 2025).Google Scholar
Kolhede, E. & Gomez-Arias, J. T. (2022). Segmentation of individual donors to charitable organizations. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 19(2), 333–365.10.1007/s12208-021-00306-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, A. C. & Evans, J. (2025). Simulating subjects: The promise and peril of artificial intelligence stand-ins for social agents and interactions. Sociological Methods & Research, 54(3), 1017–1073.10.1177/00491241251337316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G. & Vespignani, A. (2014). The parable of Google flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science, 343(6176), 1203–1205.10.1126/science.1248506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Leeuwen, B., Bosma, U. & Wang, M. (2023). Industrial revolutions in a globalizing world, 1760–present, in Handbook of industrial development, edited by Bianchi, P., Tomlinson, P. R. & Labory, S.. Edward Elgar Publishing, 18–36.10.4337/9781800379091.00010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton, Z. C. (2018). The mythos of model interpretability. Communications of the ACM, 61(10), 36–43.10.1145/3233231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, L. & Bamman, D. (2021). Gender and representation bias in GPT-3 generated stories, in Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Narrative Understanding, edited by Akoury, N., Brahman, F., Chaturvedi, S., Clark, E., Iyyer, M. & Martin, L. J.. Virtual, Association for Computational Linguistics, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.nuse-1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K. & Galstyan, A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(6), 1–35.10.1145/3457607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalf, J. & Crawford, K. (2016). Where are human subjects in Big Data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–14.10.1177/2053951716650211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miner, A. S., Milstein, A., Schueller, S., Hegde, R., Mangurian, C. & Linos, E. (2016). Smartphone-based conversational agents and responses to questions about mental health, interpersonal violence, and physical health. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(5), 619–625.10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, T. T., Hui, P. M., Harper, F. M., Terveen, L. & Konstan, J. A. (2014). Exploring the filter bubble: The effect of using recommender systems on content diversity. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, Seoul, Korea, 7–11 April, 677–686.10.1145/2566486.2568012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, S. J. & Yang, Q. (2010). A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 22(10), 1345–1359.10.1109/TKDE.2009.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, G., Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., et al. (2015). Automatic personality assessment through social media language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 934.10.1037/pspp0000020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, Y. J., O’Brien, J. C., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P. & Bernstein, M. S. (2023). Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03442.Google Scholar
Pogrebna, G., Angelopoulos, S., Motsi-Omoijiade, I., Kharlamov, A. & Tkachenko, N. (2024). The impact of intersectional racial and gender biases on minority female leadership over two centuries. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 111.10.1038/s41598-023-50392-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., et al. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477–486.10.1038/s41586-019-1138-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salganik, M. J. (2018). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital age. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, A. & Singh, B. J. (2020). Evolution of industrial revolutions: A review. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 9(11), 66–73.10.35940/ijitee.I7144.0991120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skilton, M. & Hovsepian, F. (2018). The 4th industrial revolution. Springer Nature.10.1007/978-3-319-62479-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, F., Zhang, M., Liu, Y. & Nee, A. Y. C. (2019). Digital twin driven smart manufacturing: Connotation, reference model, applications and research issues. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 61, 101837.Google Scholar
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B. & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31, 841–887.Google Scholar
Wang, R., Chen, F., Chen, Z., et al. (2018). StudentLife: Assessing mental health, academic performance and behavioural trends of college students using smartphones. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Seattle, WA, 13–17 September, 3–14.Google Scholar
Yadav, S., Chakraborty, P., Meena, L., Yadav, D., & Mittal, P. (2021). Children’s interaction with touchscreen devices: Performance and validity of Fitts’ law. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(5), 1132–1140.10.1002/hbe2.305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarkoni, T. & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122.10.1177/1745691617693393CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeung, K. (2017). ‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118–136.10.1080/1369118X.2016.1186713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.