IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0183149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Low validity of Google Trends for behavioral forecasting of national suicide rates

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich S Tran
  • Rita Andel
  • Thomas Niederkrotenthaler
  • Benedikt Till
  • Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross
  • Martin Voracek

Abstract

Recent research suggests that search volumes of the most popular search engine worldwide, Google, provided via Google Trends, could be associated with national suicide rates in the USA, UK, and some Asian countries. However, search volumes have mostly been studied in an ad hoc fashion, without controls for spurious associations. This study evaluated the validity and utility of Google Trends search volumes for behavioral forecasting of suicide rates in the USA, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Suicide-related search terms were systematically collected and respective Google Trends search volumes evaluated for availability. Time spans covered 2004 to 2010 (USA, Switzerland) and 2004 to 2012 (Germany, Austria). Temporal associations of search volumes and suicide rates were investigated with time-series analyses that rigorously controlled for spurious associations. The number and reliability of analyzable search volume data increased with country size. Search volumes showed various temporal associations with suicide rates. However, associations differed both across and within countries and mostly followed no discernable patterns. The total number of significant associations roughly matched the number of expected Type I errors. These results suggest that the validity of Google Trends search volumes for behavioral forecasting of national suicide rates is low. The utility and validity of search volumes for the forecasting of suicide rates depend on two key assumptions (“the population that conducts searches consists mostly of individuals with suicidal ideation”, “suicide-related search behavior is strongly linked with suicidal behavior”). We discuss strands of evidence that these two assumptions are likely not met. Implications for future research with Google Trends in the context of suicide research are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrich S Tran & Rita Andel & Thomas Niederkrotenthaler & Benedikt Till & Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross & Martin Voracek, 2017. "Low validity of Google Trends for behavioral forecasting of national suicide rates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-26, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0183149
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183149
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183149&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0183149?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Livio Fenga, 2020. "Filtering and prediction of noisy and unstable signals: The case of Google Trends data," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(2), pages 281-295, March.
    2. Joana M. Barros & Ruth Melia & Kady Francis & John Bogue & Mary O’Sullivan & Karen Young & Rebecca A. Bernert & Dietrich Rebholz-Schuhmann & Jim Duggan, 2019. "The Validity of Google Trends Search Volumes for Behavioral Forecasting of National Suicide Rates in Ireland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Zoltán Kmetty & Károly Bozsonyi, 2022. "Identifying Depression-Related Behavior on Facebook—An Experimental Study," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0183149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.