Nowcasting Unemployment: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Rita Xu and Version 1 by Vaida Pilinkiene.

In contrast to researchers who used only a small number of search queries or limited themselves to job agency explorations, researchers incorporated keywords from the following six dimensions of Google Trends searches: job search, benefits, and application; mental health; violence and abuse; leisure search; consumption and lifestyle; and disasters.

  • LSTM
  • neural networks
  • unemployment
  • nowcasting

1. Introduction

Due to the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy and the rising rates of unemployment, the need for more accurate unemployment forecasting models has become increasingly urgent. Recent developments in the nowcasting literature indicate an attempt to provide an enhanced approximation of the unemployment situation in a timely manner, which might benefit government institutions that are preparing to take pro-active measures against a surge in joblessness. In essence, nowcasting is a technique used to predict the behavior of the economy in real time or as close as possible to real time, allowing governments to make more informed decisions about the stimulus rather than relying on lagging monthly indicators (Giannone et al. 2008; Bańbura et al. 2013). Numerous authors have already reported successes in nowcasting unemployment, car sales, GDP, household consumption with credit card transaction data, foreign arrivals, and even building permits (Choi and Varian 2009a; Banbura et al. 2010; Barreira et al. 2013; Pavlicek and Kristoufek 2015; Rusnák 2016; Coble and Pincheira 2017; Richardson and Mulder 2018; Antolini and Grassini 2018; Nymand-Andersen and Pantelidis 2018; Giovannelli et al. 2020; Aastveit et al. 2020). Although the reported effectiveness of nowcasting models differs from author to author, a general consensus has emerged that nowcasting helps improve prediction accuracy.
Despite the growing literature on nowcasting, much needs to be discussed and perfected regarding the models or variable choices themselves. For instance, one source of data that has been widely popular amongst researchers is user internet search activity, such as Google Trends data (Askitas and Zimmermann 2009; D’Amuri 2009; Choi and Varian 2009b; Chadwick and Sengul 2012; Barreira et al. 2013; Smith 2016; Naccarato et al. 2017; Nymand-Andersen and Pantelidis 2018; Nagao et al. 2019; Anttonen 2018; Dilmaghani 2019; Borup et al. 2021; Mulero and García-Hiernaux 2021). According to Ettredge et al. (2005), the usefulness of such data is that through search activity, citizens provide useful information about their intentions, needs, wants, and interests. In many cases, people who lose their jobs use Google to help them find unemployment benefit agencies and new job openings, as indicated by the fact that 93.63% of all mobile searches are performed through Google (Netmarketshare 2022). As a result, authors such as Mulero and García-Hiernaux (2021) and Naccarato et al. (2017) claim that by using Google data, an increase in the predictive accuracy of 10–25% or a reduction in forecasting errors was achieved. Another advantage of using Google Trends is that it provides various frequencies, which benefits the nowcasting procedure.
On the other hand, authors, including Nagao et al. (2019) and Barreira et al. (2013), produced mixed results when forecasting unemployment. Google’s trend data did not increase accuracy in all countries, and specific preconditions were required for search activity data to work. As Smith (2016) puts it, the challenge with search data is that one must determine which keywords are relevant and how many keywords should be incorporated to best mirror a jobless or soon-to-be-jobless person’s search query that later translates to unemployment numbers. In the case of Nagao et al. (2019), only two keywords were used; by expanding the keyword dictionary, the results might have changed substantially. Thus, despite some success stories, the question of how to correctly mine the data from Google Trends is a real challenge that requires considerable future improvements.
Tangent to the keyword selection issue, there is also a lack of attempt to incorporate other socially important keywords that could be highly related to unemployment figures. For example, many authors only included keywords such as “jobs” or “job offers” but did not include other keyword dimensions, such as “online casino”, “anxiety”, “depression”, and “leisure activities”. Researchers such as Mousteri et al. (2018) and Liu et al. (2021) found that joblessness and psychological distress are interrelated; thus, the expansion of the keyword corpus could lead to a better Google Trends forecast.
Furthermore, despite recent developments in machine learning, there have been relatively few attempts to use neural networks in nowcasting unemployment. Much of the literature deploys dynamic factor models (DFM), ARIMA, or mixed data sampling (MIDAS) (D’Amuri 2009; Smith 2016; Chernis and Sekkel 2017). However, according to Hopp (2021), the long–short term memory (LSTM) neural network approach has an edge over the DFM in accuracy, speed, and volume. Thus, the machine learning approach could be explored more within the nowcasting context.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to investigate a multidimensional approach of Google search query data in nowcasting USA initial jobless claim numbers using LSTM neural networks. To our knowledge, this is the first paper that expands Google keyword dimensions to include psychological factors, gambling, and other activities to nowcast initial jobless claims numbers using neural networks. In addition, this paper tests different feature extraction strategies, offering future researchers recommendations regarding what to focus on when conducting keyword selection to avoid common pitfalls. The findings of this study can help central banks and other government institutions expand their variable horizons to achieve better forecast accuracy. The analysis period also covers the COVID-19 timeline.

2. Forecasting Unemployment Using Google Trends

One of the first papers that considered Google Trends for unemployment nowcasting was written by Choi and Varian (2009a). The authors attempted to nowcast initial jobless claims for unemployment benefits by using the keywords “Jobs” and “Welfare & Unemployment”. The results revealed that the out-of-sample mean absolute error was reduced by 15.74 and 12.90% for the long- and short-term models, respectively. In the same year, followed papers by D’Amuri (2009) and Askitas and Zimmermann (2009). The work of D’Amuri (2009) limited itself to only one keyword “jobs” whereas Askitas and Zimmermann (2009) used four different categories of keywords: “unemployment office or agency”, “unemployment rate”, “Personnel Consultant”, and keywords that relate to the most popular job search engines in Germany. Both authors concluded that Google Trends helped improve forecasting errors. As depicted in Table 1, Chadwick and Sengul (2012) nowcasted Türkiye’s unemployment rate using keywords that related to “looking for a job”, “job announcements”, “CV”, and “career” and provided supportive evidence for using Google Trends. Fondeur and Karamé (2013) achieved success in forecasting French youth unemployment with only one keyword “job”. The RMSE was improved on average by 13.6%. Several recent papers are still using a limited range of keywords. For instance, Aaronson et al. (2022), Maas (2019), and Larson and Sinclair (2021) employed a single search term (“unemployment”), D’Amuri and Marcucci (2017) used “jobs”, whereas Simionescu (2020), Simionescua and Cifuentes-Faura (2021) used two terms “unemployment” and “job offers”. Despite the use of single or double keywords, Google Trends improved accuracy.
Table 1. A summary of Google keywords used for unemployment forecasts by previous authors.
Authors Keywords Used
Choi and Varian (2009a) “Jobs”, “Welfare & Unemployment”
D’Amuri (2009); Maas (2019); Larson and Sinclair (2021) “jobs”
Askitas and Zimmermann (2009) “unemployment office or agency”, “unemployment rate”, “Personnel Consultant”, and keywords that relate to the most popular job search engines in Germany.
Chadwick and Sengul (2012) looking for a job”, “job announcements”, “CV”, and “career”
Fondeur and Karamé (2013) “job”.
Simionescu (2020); Simionescua and Cifuentes-Faura (2021) “unemployment” and “job offers”.
Pavlicek and Kristoufek (2015) “work” or “jobs”
Nagao et al. (2019) jobs” and “job offer”.
Barreira et al. (2013) “unemployment” and “unemployment benefits”
Schiavoni et al. (2021) 85 keywords that strongly relate to the job process (e.g., CV, cover letter, job vacancies).
Yi et al. (2021) 25 work or job-related keywords
Caperna et al. (2020) Many work related keywords.
On the other hand, some researchers claim to have achieved mixed results. Pavlicek and Kristoufek (2015) used the keywords “work” or “jobs” for Visegrad countries in multiple languages. The authors concluded that for Hungary and Slovakia, user search trails can be integrated easily; however, for Poland and Slovakia, the results were not consistent. Similar findings were achieved by Nagao et al. (2019), who limited themselves to only two terms: “jobs” and “job offer”. The authors found no consistency regarding improved accuracy, particularly when considering the long-term nowcasts, whereas Barreira et al. (2013), using “unemployment” and “unemployment benefits”, found an improvement in three out of the four countries analyzed. Unfortunately, few studies have attempted to incorporate a higher query volume. Among these papers is one by Schiavoni et al. (2021), who studied the Netherlands’ job market. The authors included 85 keyword search terms but limited the query to words that strongly relate to the job process (e.g., CV, cover letter, job vacancies). A slightly different approach was adopted by Caperna et al. (2020) and Yi et al. (2021), who suggested not only examining the “unemployment” keyword but also checking the most-searched terms and, when filtering them, determining which related to work and jobs. Yi et al. (2021) obtained 25 keywords for the USA region and successfully integrated them into the forecasting model. In the case of Caperna et al. (2020), the search term queries were extremely varied; for example, for Estonia, 3 keywords were chosen and 178 for Italy, whereas for some countries, such as Luxemburg or Malta, none were found. The results of Google Trends benefits for Caperna et al. (2020) also varied, and further methods were required to find significant relationships.

3. Additional Keyword Opportunities

The analysis of the existing studies reveals that the authors limited themselves to one or two basic keywords, and the expansion of keywords was highly constrained to the job application procedure. This approach led some researchers to conclude that Google Trends offered no additional benefit to nowcasting models or that trends are inconsistent over longer periods. However, the pitfalls or further improvement of the models could be partially attributed to Google Trends keyword mining process. By only considering one keyword for forecasting, the authors cast aside the big picture and the nuances of behavioral economics that are profoundly related to unemployment numbers. For instance, Liu et al. (2021) and Wanberg et al. (2019) found strong links between unemployment and mental health. In times of downturn, the fear of job loss can trigger mental distress, particularly when loss of employment benefits is taken into account. The study by Breuer (2015) argued that unemployment increases the risk of suicide, while Butterworth et al. (2012) found that poor mental health leads to a longer duration of unemployment for both men and women. Furthermore, studies by Sotis (2021) and Askitas (2015) found that when labor market conditions deteriorate, searches for health symptoms proliferate; therefore, a dimension of mental health keywords (MHKs) could provide substantial benefits to model precision. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, no study is available for nowcasting unemployment that includes MHKs. Furthermore, a contentious issue among labor economists has been to analyze the trade-offs between leisure and labor. More importantly, Havitz et al. (2004) and Goodman et al. (2016) claim that unemployed people spend more time in leisure to mitigate the stress of joblessness. In the Internet age, leisure time is frequently spent consuming free entertainment, such as YouTube, online video games, and downloading movie torrents via sites such as “The Pirate Bay” (Lehdonvirta 2013). A highly regarded study in this area was undertaken by Dilmaghani (2019) that included torrent websites as a proxy for leisure activities and managed to nowcast unemployment numbers more accurately. However, leisure-related keywords still have more to offer. For instance, Frangos et al. (2011) discovered that people involved in unemployment programs were more likely to develop a problematic pornography habit. This is because, according to Uzieblo and Prescott (2020), pornography may act as a stress reliever in times of high anxiety. Similarly, some kind of association between unemployment and gambling persists. Khanthavit (2021) found that unemployment and gambling have a circular relationship, while Pallesen et al. (2021) and Mallorquí-Bagué et al. (2017) determined that internet gaming disorder was more prominent among single unemployed persons. Thus, an increase in online gaming, gambling platforms, and sites, such as “OnlyFans”, search activity could help to improve Google Trends mining process. Another negative behavior associated with unemployment is domestic abuse (Anderberg et al. 2016; Bhalotra et al. 2021). According to Anderberg et al. (2016), women who are at risk of job loss become more economically reliant on their partners. This reliance can then lead male partners who have a predisposition to violence to reveal their abusive tendencies. Thus, high female unemployment leads to an elevated risk of intimate partner violence. As a way out, people may use Google searches to find public shelter. A study by Berniell and Facchini (2021) reported a high Google search intensity in 11 countries for keywords such as “domestic abuse” or “domestic violence hotline” during the COVID-19 lockdowns. The strong correlation between unemployment and domestic abuse might also assist nowcasting. Many other important keywords should also be incorporated into the nowcasting model. Some of these include “gig economy”, “recipes”, “hobbies”, “Netflix”, “payday loans”, lottery tickets”, “alcohol”, “layoffs”, “auto insurance”, “hardship letter”, or words related to comfort food (Dávalos et al. 2011; Askitas 2015; Agarwal et al. 2016; Chadi and Hetschko 2017; Huang et al. 2018; Gabrielyan and Just 2020; McKinsey & Company 2020; Gamze and Aydan 2021).

4. Nowcasting and Machine Learning

Previous studies used a wide range of methods to nowcast unemployment numbers. Mulero and García-Hiernaux (2021), Larson and Sinclair (2021), Simionescu (2020), Caperna et al. (2020), Nagao et al. (2019), Dilmaghani (2019), D’Amuri and Marcucci (2017), Pavlicek and Kristoufek (2015), Chadwick and Sengul (2012) and Choi and Varian (2009a) used some form of autoregressive models. Yi et al. (2021) suggested a PRISM approach, and Schiavoni et al. (2021) incorporated a well-known model of DFM, whereas Maas (2019) attempted the MIDAS model. Although each model has its own strengths and weaknesses, the recent developments in neural networks deserve deeper exploration. As stated by Brownlee (2018) and Bruneckiene et al. (2021), neural networks may provide a solution for capturing the non-linear patterns in the data that can be difficult to detect using conventional econometrical methods as well as offering the ability to use a higher volume of data. Unfortunately, few studies have attempted to forecast unemployment numbers using Google Trends in conjunction with LSTMs. Fenga and Son-Turan (2022) used a feed-forward neural network for counterfactual predictions, whereas Singhania and Kundu (2020) deployed the LSTM model for monthly data. According to Singhania and Kundu (2020), the authors attempted, at first, to use the VAR model but were soon faced with a major drawback as the VAR model can only be used to capture the relationship between search trends of a limited number of keywords due to growth in the complexity and parameters. As such, the authors attempted to use LSTMs as an alternative. In the end, the LSTMs significantly outperformed the VAR model but were not used for nowcasting. The latter results could be a good indication to use the LSTM model in this paper as it can help to deal with a large number of keywords in an efficient manner.

References

  1. Giannone, Domenico, Lucrezia Reichlin, and David Small. 2008. Nowcasting: The real-time informational content of macroeconomic data. Journal of Monetary Economics 55: 665–76.
  2. Bańbura, Marta, Domenico Giannone, Michele Modugno, and Lucrezia Reichlin. 2013. Now-Casting and the Real-Time Data Flow. Working Paper Series. Available online: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1564.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  3. Choi, Hyunyoung, and Hal Varian. 2009a. Predicting Initial Claims for Unemployment Benefits. Google Technical Report. Mountain View: Google Inc.
  4. Banbura, Marta, Domenico Giannone, and Lucrezia Reichlin. 2010. Nowcasting (November 30, 2010). ECB Working Paper No. 1275. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1717887 (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  5. Barreira, Nuno, Pedro Godinho, and Paulo Melo. 2013. Nowcasting unemployment rate and new car sales in south-western Europe with Google Trends. NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking 14: 129–65.
  6. Pavlicek, Jaroslav, and Ladislav Kristoufek. 2015. Nowcasting Unemployment Rates with Google Searches: Evidence from the Visegrad Group Countries. PLoS ONE 10: e0127084.
  7. Rusnák, Marek. 2016. Nowcasting Czech GDP in real time. Economic Modelling 54: 26–39.
  8. Coble, David, and Pablo M. Pincheira. 2017. Now-Casting Building Permits with Google Trends (February 1, 2017). Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2910165 (accessed on 5 August 2022).
  9. Richardson, Adam, and Thomas Mulder. 2018. Nowcasting New Zealand GDP Using Machine Learning Algorithms. International Journal of Forecasting 37: 941–48.
  10. Antolini, Fabrizio, and Laura Grassini. 2018. Foreign arrivals nowcasting in Italy with Google Trends data. Quality & Quantity 53: 2385–401.
  11. Nymand-Andersen, Per, and Emmanouil Pantelidis. 2018. Google Econometrics: Nowcasting Euro Area Car Sales and Big Data Quality Requirements. ECB Statistics Paper, No. 30. Frankfurt a. M.: European Central Bank (ECB). ISBN 978-92-899-3359-9.
  12. Giovannelli, Tommaso, Alessandro Giovannelli, Ottavio Ricchi, Ambra Citton, Christían Tegami, and Cristina Tinti. 2020. Nowcasting GDP and Its Components in a Data-Rich Environment: The Merits of the Indirect Approach (May 29, 2020). CEIS Working Paper No. 489. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3614110 (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  13. Aastveit, Knut Are, Tuva Marie Fastbø, Eleonora Granziera, Kenneth Sæterhagen Paulsen, and Kjersti Næss Torstensen. 2020. Nowcasting Norwegian Household Consumption with Debit Card Transaction Data. Norges Bank, Working Paper 17/2020. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2722899 (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  14. Askitas, Nikolaos, and Klaus F. Zimmermann. 2009. Google Econometrics and Unemployment Forecasting. IZA Discussion Paper. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor, p. 4201.
  15. D’Amuri, Francesco. 2009. Predicting Unemployment in Short Samples with Internet Job Search Query Data. MPRA Paper No: 18403. Boston: Statistical Association.
  16. Choi, Hyunyoung, and Hal Varian. 2009b. Predicting Present with Google Trends. Available online: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//googleblogs/pdfs/google_predicting_the_present.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  17. Chadwick, Meltem Gülenay, and Gönül Sengul. 2012. Nowcasting Unemployment Rate in Turkey: Let’s Ask Google. Ankara: Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.
  18. Smith, Paul. 2016. Google’s MIDAS Touch: Predicting UK Unemployment with Internet Search Data. Journal of Forecasting 35: 263–84.
  19. Naccarato, Alessia, Stefano Falorsi, Silvia Loriga, and Andrea Pierini. 2017. Combining official and Google Trends data to forecast the Italian youth unemployment rate. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 130: 114–22.
  20. Nagao, Shintaro, Fumiko Takeda, and Riku Tanaka. 2019. Nowcasting of the U.S. unemployment rate using Google Trends. Finance Research Letters 30: 103–109.
  21. Anttonen, Jetro. 2018. Nowcasting the Unemployment Rate in the EU with Seasonal BVAR and Google Search Data. ETLA Working Papers, No. 62. Helsinki: The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA).
  22. Dilmaghani, Maryam. 2019. Workopolis or The Pirate Bay: What does Google Trends say about the unemployment rate? Journal of Economic Studies 46: 422–45.
  23. Borup, Daniel, David E. Rapach, and Erik Christian Montes Schütte. 2021. Mixed-Frequency Machine Learning: Now- and Backcasting Weekly Initial Claims with Daily Internet Search-Volume Data (July 28, 2021). Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3690832 (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  24. Mulero, Rodrigo, and Alfredo García-Hiernaux. 2021. Forecasting Spanish unemployment with Google Trends and dimension reduction techniques. SERIEs 12: 329–49.
  25. Ettredge, Michael, John Gerdes, and Gilbert Karuga. 2005. Using Web-based Search Data to Predict Macroeconomic statistics. Communications of the ACM 48: 87–92.
  26. Netmarketshare. 2022. Google Search Engine Total Market Share. Available online: https://netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  27. Mousteri, Victoria, Michael Daly, and Liam Delaney. 2018. The scarring effect of unemployment on psychological well-being across Europe. Social Science Research 72: 146–69.
  28. Liu, Shuyan, Stephan Heinzel, Matthias N. Haucke, and Andreas Heinz. 2021. Increased Psychological Distress, Loneliness, and Unemployment in the Spread of COVID-19 over 6 Months in Germany. Medicina 57: 53.
  29. Chernis, Tony, and Rodrigo Sekkel. 2017. A dynamic factor model for nowcasting Canadian GDP growth. Empirical Economics 53: 217–34.
  30. Hopp, Daniel. 2021. Economic Nowcasting with Long Short-Term Memory Artificial Neural Networks (LSTM). UNCTAD Research Paper No. 62. Genève: UNCTAD.
  31. Fondeur, Yannick, and Frédéric Karamé. 2013. Can Google data help predict French youth unemployment? Economic Modelling 30: 117–25.
  32. Aaronson, Daniel, Scott A. Brave, R. Andrew Butters, Michael Fogarty, Daniel W. Sacks, and Boyoung Seo. 2022. Forecasting unemployment insurance claims in realtime with Google Trends. International Journal of Forecasting 38: 567–81.
  33. Maas, Benedikt. 2019. Short-term forecasting of the US unemployment rate. Journal of Forecasting 39: 394–411.
  34. Larson, William D., and Tara M. Sinclair. 2021. Nowcasting unemployment insurance claims in the time of COVID-19. International Journal of Forecasting 38: 635–47.
  35. D’Amuri, Francesco, and Juri Marcucci. 2017. The predictive power of Google searches in forecasting US unemployment. International Journal of Forecasting 33: 801–16.
  36. Simionescu, Mihaela. 2020. Improving unemployment rate forecasts at regional level in Romania using Google Trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 155: 120026.
  37. Simionescua, Mihaela, and Javier Cifuentes-Faura. 2021. Can unemployment forecasts based on Google Trends help government design better policies? An investigation based on Spain and Portugal. Journal of Policy Modeling 44: 1–21.
  38. Schiavoni, Caterina, Franz Palm, Stephan Smeekes, and Jan van den Brakel. 2021. A dynamic factor model approach to incorporate Big Data in state space models for official statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A-Statistics in Society 184: 324–53.
  39. Yi, Dingdong, Shaoyang Ning, Chia-Jung Chang, and Supeng Kou. 2021. Forecasting Unemployment Using Internet Search Data via PRISM. Journal of the American Statistical Association 116: 1662–73.
  40. Caperna, Giulio, Marco Colagrossi, Andrea Geraci, and Gianluca Mazzarella. 2020. Googling Unemployment During the Pandemic: Inference and Nowcast Using Search Data. JRC Working Papers in Economics and Finance. Brussels: Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
  41. Wanberg, Connie R., Edwin A. J. van Hooft, Karyn Dossinger, Annelies E. M. van Vianen, and Ute-Christine Klehe. 2019. How Strong Is My Safety Net? Perceived Unemployment Insurance Generosity and Implications for Job Search, Mental Health, and Reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology 105: 209.
  42. Breuer, Christian. 2015. Unemployment and Suicide Mortality: Evidence from Regional Panel Data in Europe. Health Economics 24: 936–50.
  43. Butterworth, Peter, Liana S. Leach, Jane Pirkis, and Margaret Kelaher. 2012. Poor mental health influences risk and duration of unemployment: A prospective study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 47: 1013–21.
  44. Sotis, Chiara. 2021. How do Google searches for symptoms, news and unemployment interact during COVID-19? A Lotka–Volterra analysis of google trends data. Quality & Quantity 55: 2001–16.
  45. Askitas, Nikolaos. 2015. Google Search Activity Data and Breaking Trends. IZA World of Labor. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), p. 206.
  46. Havitz, Mark E., Peter A. Morden, and Diane M. Samdahl. 2004. The Diverse Worlds of Unemployed Adults: Consequences for Leisure, Lifestyle, and Well-Being. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
  47. Goodman, William K., Ashley M. Geiger, and Jutta M. Wolf. 2016. Leisure Activities Are Linked to Mental Health Benefits by Providing Time Structure: Comparing Employed, Unemployed and Homemakers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 71: 4–11. Available online: https://jech.bmj.com/content/71/1/4.short (accessed on 6 August 2022).
  48. Lehdonvirta, Vili. 2013. A history of the digitalization of consumer culture. In Digital Virtual Consumption. Edited by Mike Molesworth and Janice Denegri-Knott. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge, pp. 18–35.
  49. Frangos, Christos C., Constantinos C. Frangos, and Ioannis Sotiropoulos. 2011. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. Cyberpsykologi, Beteende och Sociala Nätverk 14: 51–58.
  50. Uzieblo, Kasia, and David Prescott. 2020. Online pornography use during the COVID-19 pandemic: Should we worry? Part I. Sexual Abuse-Blogspot 40: 1080–1089.
  51. Khanthavit, Anya. 2021. A Causality Analysis of Lottery Gambling and Unemployment in Thailand. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 8: 149–56.
  52. Pallesen, Ståle, Rune Aune Mentzoni, Arne Magnus Morken, Jonny Engebø, Puneet Kaur, and Eilin Kristine Erevik. 2021. Changes Over Time and Predictors of Online Gambling in Three Norwegian Population Studies 2013–2019. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12: 597615.
  53. Mallorquí-Bagué, Nuria, Fernando Fernández-Aranda, María Lozano-Madrid, Roser Granero, Gemma Mestre-Bach, Marta Baño, Amparo Del Pino-Gutiérrez, Mónica Gómez-Peña, Neus Aymam, José M. Menchón, and et al. 2017. Internet gaming disorder and online gambling disorder: Clinical and personality correlates. Journal of Behavioral Addictions 6: 669–77.
  54. Anderberg, Dan, Helmut Rainer, Jonathan Wadsworth, and Tanya Wilson. 2016. Unemployment and Domestic Violence: Theory and Evidence. Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society 126: 1947–79.
  55. Bhalotra, Sonia, Diogo G. C. Britto, Paolo Pinotti, and Breno Sampaio. 2021. Job Displacement, Unemployment Benefits and Domestic Violence. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP16350. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3886839 (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  56. Berniell, Inés, and Gabriel Facchini. 2021. COVID-19 lockdown and domestic violence: Evidence from internet-search behavior in 11 countries. European Economic Review 136: 103775.
  57. Dávalos, María E., Hai Fang, and Michael T. French. 2011. Easing The Pain of An Economic Downturn: Macroeconomic Conditions And Excessive Alcohol Consumption. Health Economics 52: 1318–35.
  58. Agarwal, Sumit, Tal Gross, and Bhashkar Mazumder. 2016. How Did the Great Recession Affect Payday Loans? Economic Perspective. Available online: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/frbchi/economicperspectives/frbchi_econper_2016n2.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  59. Chadi, Adrian, and Clemens Hetschko. 2017. Income or Leisure? On the Hidden Benefits of (Un-)employment. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329152413_Income_or_Leisure_On_the_Hidden_Benefits_of_Un-employment (accessed on 4 June 2022).
  60. Huang, Ni, Gordon Burtch, and Paul Pavlou. 2018. Local Economic Conditions and Worker Participation in the Online Gig Economy. Paper presented at the Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA, December 13–16; Available online: http://metadataetc.org/gigontology/pdf/Huang%20et%20al.%20%20Local%20Economic%20Conditions%20and%20Worker%20Participation.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  61. Gabrielyan, Gnel, and David R. Just. 2020. Economic shocks and lottery sales: An examination of Maine State lottery sales. Applied Economics 52: 3498–511.
  62. McKinsey & Company. 2020. How the Coronavirus Could Change US Personal Auto Insurance. Available online: http://dln.jaipuria.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1531/1/How-the-coronavirus-could-change-us-personal-auto-insurance.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  63. Gamze, Gamze Bayın, and Seda Aydan. 2021. Association of COVID-19 with lifestyle behaviours and socio-economic variables in Turkey: An analysis of Google Trends. International Journal of Health Planning and Management 1: 20.
  64. Brownlee, Jason. 2018. Deep Learning for Time Series Forecasting. Machine Learning Mastery. Available online: https://machinelearningmastery.com/deep-learning-for-time-series-forecasting/ (accessed on 4 August 2022).
  65. Bruneckiene, Jurgita, Robertas Jucevicius, Ineta Zykiene, Jonas Rapsikevicius, and Mantas Lukauskas. 2021. Quantum Theory and Artificial Intelligence in the Analysis of the Development of Socio-Economic Systems: Theoretical Insights. In Developing Countries and Technology Inclusion in the 21st Century Information Society. Hershey: IGI Global.
  66. Fenga, Livio, and Semen Son-Turan. 2022. Forecasting youth unemployment in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic: The Italian case. International Journal of Scientic and Management Research 5: 75–91.
  67. Singhania, Rajshekhar, and Sourav Kundu. 2020. Forecasting the United States Unemployment Rate by Using Recurrent Neural Networks with Google Trends Data (June 18, 2020). International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 11. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3801209 (accessed on 6 August 2022).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback