Charismatic Speech

1. Charismatic Speech Andrew Rosenberg Spoken Language Processing 4/24/06

2. Overview • Background • Previous Work • Speech Study • Text Study • Conclusion & Future Work

3. Overview • Background • What is charisma? • Does charismatic speech exist? • Charismatic Speech vs. Emotional Speech • Why study charismatic speech? • Previous Work • Speech Study • Text Study • Conclusion & Future Work

4. Background - What is charisma? (What do I mean by charisma?) • Not “closed door” charisma. • Rather, political (or religious) charisma • The ability to attract, and retain followers by virtue of personality as opposed to tradition or laws. (Weber) • E.g. Ghandi, Hitler, Che Guevara. • Charismatic speech: Speech that encourages listeners to perceive the speaker as “charismatic”.

5. Background - Is there such a thing as charismatic speech? • Pro: • Potential charismatic leaders must communicate with would-be followers. • Charismatic leaders have historically had a particular gift at public speaking • Hitler, MLK Jr., Castro. • Con: • Charisma as a relationship between leader and followers. • The mythologizing of a charismatic leader extends beyond public address.

6. Background - Charismatic speech vs. Emotional speech • Similarities • Paralinguistic phenomena. • Not represented the traditional syntax-semantics-pragmatics paradigm. • Can be studied in the same way via perceptual studies • Differences • Charisma is not a “speaker state”. • Social context of charisma. • Personal attitudes towards charisma.

7. Background - Why study charismatic speech? • General scientific interest. • Feedback system for politicians and academic instructors. • Identification of potential charismatic leaders • Automatic generation of “charismatic-like” speech

8. Overview • Background • Previous Work • C. Tuppen, “Dimensions of Communicator Credibility: An oblique solution.” • A. Hamilton & B. Stewart, “Extending an Information Processing Model of Language Intensity Effects” • Speech Study • Text Study • Conclusion & Future Work

9. Previous Work - Tuppen • Christopher Tuppen, “Dimensions of communicator credibility: An oblique solution”, Speech Monographs(41), 1974. • 101 subjects read a booklet containing ten character sketches. • Student, professor, ad exec, farmer, unethical businessman, doctor, ret. Army officer, man of religion, hippie, tv personality. • Topics: how much sleep you need, marijuana and health, duration of US envolvement in SE Asia, and tuition at State Colleges. • The subjects rated each communicator on 64 scales. • 28 bipolar adjective, 36 seven-point Likert scales.

10. Previous Work - Tuppen (2) • The subject ratings were grouped using “cluster analysis” • Cluster 1: “Trustworthiness” • Trustworthy, honest, safe, dependable, reputable, etc. • Cluster 2: “Expertise” • Qualified, skilled, informed, experienced, etc. • Cluster 3: “Dynamism” • Bold, active, aggressive, strong, emphatic, etc.

11. Previous Work - Tuppen (3) • Cluster 4: “Co-orientation” • Created a favorable impression, stood for a group whose interests coincided with the rater, represented acceptable values, was someone to whom the rater would like to listen. • Cluster 5: “Charisma” • Convincing, reasonable, right, logical, believable, intelligent, whose opinion is respected, whose background is admired, in whom the reader has confidence.

12. Previous Work - Hamilton & Stewart (1) • M. Hamilton & B. Stewart, “Extending an Information Processing Model of Language Intensity Effects”, Communication Quarterly (41:2), 1993 • “How forceful should my language be in order to maximize my social influence?” • I.e., what is the relationship between language intensity and persuasion.

13. Previous Work -Hamilton & Stewart (2) • Intensity is expressed by manipulating two language features: emotionality and specificity. • Emotionality: degree of affect present in the language. Ranges from stolid displays to histrionics. • Specificity: degree to which precise reference is made to attitude objects. • Attitude change is a product of message discrepancy, perceived source credibility and message strength. a - attitude, f - force, s - source credibility d - discrepancy, c - counterargument  - impact parameter

14. Previous Work -Hamilton & Stewart (3) • 518 subjects presented with a “persuasive message” with manipulated intensity. • The message’s language was evaluated on 11 terms using a 7-point bipolar adjective scale. • Intense, strong, active, extreme, forceful, emotional, vivid,vigorous, powerful, assertive, potent • Perceived source competence, trustworthiness and dynamism were assessed.

15. Previous Work -Hamilton & Stewart (4) • Correlations between subject ratings and manipulated features were calculated using a causal modeling program, PATH. Extremity of position .42 “charisma sequence” -.32 Manipulated intensity Perceived intensity Source dynamism Source competence Source trustworthiness .64 .78 .52 .73 -.18

16. Overview • Background • Previous Work • Speech Study • Questions • Description • Results • Text Study • Conclusion & Future Work

17. Speech Study - Questions • Do subjects agree about what is charismatic? • What do subjects mean by charismatic? • What makes speech charismatic?

18. Speech Study - Description • Subjects: Friends and colleagues, no incentive • Interface: Presentation of 45 short speech segments (2-30secs) via a web form • Dependent variables: 5-point Likert scale ratings of agreement on 26 statements. • Duration: avg. 1.5 hrs, min 45m, max ~3hrs

19. Speech Study - Description • Interface • http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~amaxwell/survey/

20. Speech Study - Description • Materials: 45 tokens of American political speech • Speakers: 9 Candidates for Democratic Party’s nomination for President • Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, Mosley Braun, Sharpton • Topics: Postwar Iraq, Healthcare, Bush’s Tax plan, Reason for Running, Content-Neutral

21. Speech Study - Description • Example Tokens: • 1. • 2. • 3. • 4.

22. Speech Study - Results • Inter-subject agreement • Using the weighted kappa statistic with quadratic weighting, mean kappa was 0.213 • Inter-subject agreement by token • No significant differences across all tokens • Inter-subject agreement by statement • The individual statements demonstrate significantly different agreements

23. Most consistent statements Charisma: 0.224 (8th) Least consistent statements Speech Study - Results

24. Speech Study - Results • Statement Co-occurrence • Using the kappa statistic determined which pairs of statements were most closely correlated with the charismatic statement.

25. Speech Study - Results • Speaker Influence • There is a significant difference between speakers (p=1.75e-2) • Most charismatic • Rep. Edwards (3.73) • Rev. Sharpton (3.40) • Gov. Dean (3.32) • Least charismatic • Sen. Lieberman (2.38) • Rep. Kucinich (2.73) • Rep. Gephardt (2.77)

26. Speech Study - Results • Genre Influence • The tokens were taken from debates, interviews, stump speeches, and a campaign ad • Stump speeches were the most charismatic. (3.28) • Interviews the least. (2.90) • Topic Influence • No significant influence.

27. Speech Study – Results • Speaker Recognition • Subjects were asked to identify which, if any, speakers they recognized at the end of the study • Mean = 3.25 • Subjects rated recognized speakers (3.28) significantly more charismatic than those they did not (2.99).

28. Speech Study - Results • Acoustic/Prosodic Properties • Min, max, mean, std. dev. F0 and intensity • Phrase dynamics • Length (seconds) • Phrase final behavior: rising, falling, plateau • ToBI Pitch accent type. • Lexical Properties • Function/Content word ratio • Pronoun density • Lexical complexity • Length (words, syllables) • Repetition of words • Number of disfluencies

29. Speech Study - Results • Properties highly correlated with ratings of charisma: • Length. More content, more charismatic. • Min, max, mean std. dev. of F0 over male speakers • zscore of mean F0 (calculated over speaker) • Higher in pitch range, more charismatic • Mean intensity • Fewer rising contours (L-H%, H-H%) • Fewer L* and L*+H pitch accents

30. Speech Study – Results • Faster speaking rate (syllables per second) • Mean and standard deviation of normalized phrase intensity • Standard deviation of normalized maximum pitch • First person, but not second person, pronoun density • Lexical complexity (mean syllables per word) • More repeated words • Fewer disfluencies

31. Overview • Background • Previous Work • Speech Study • Text Study • Questions • Description • Results • Comparisons to Speech results • Conclusion & Future Work

32. Text Survey - Questions • When reading a transcript of speech, do subjects rate charisma consistently? • What do subjects mean by charisma? • Do they mean the same thing when referring to text and speech? • How does what is said influence subject ratings of charisma?

33. Text Survey - Description • Subjects: 24 paid participants found • http://newyork.craigslist.org • “Talent gigs” section • Interface: Presentation of 60 short transcripts (words…) via a web form • Dependent variables: 5-point Likert scale ratings of agreement on 26 statements. • Duration: avg. 1.5 hrs, min 45m, max ~3hrs

34. Text Survey - Description • Interface: • http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~amaxwell/textsurvey/A/

35. Text Study - Descrption • Materials: 60 of 90 tokens of American political speech • The 90 transcripts were the 45 used in the speech study, and 45 longer paragraphs • Each subject was presented with all 45 short (mean ~28 words) and a semi-random set of 15 long transcripts (mean ~130 words) • Speakers: Same as Speech Study • Topics: Same as Speech Study

36. Text Study - Description • Examples: • Token 1:

37. Text Study - Description • Examples: • Token 2.

38. Text Study - Description • Examples • Token 3:

39. Text Study - Description • Examples • Token 4:

40. Text Study - Description • Some tokens are rated very similarly whether presented as speech or a transcript. • Example 1 always charismatic • Example 2 always uncharismatic • Others are rated very differently • Example 3 more charismatic in speech • Example 4 in text

41. Text Study - Results • Inter-subject agreement • Using the weighted kappa statistic with quadratic weighting, mean kappa was 0.149 • Inter-subject agreement by token • No significant differences across all tokens • Inter-subject agreement by statement • The individual statements demonstrate significantly different agreements

42. Most consistent statements Charisma: 0.134 (18th) Least consistent statements Text Study - Results

43. Text Study - Results • Charismatic statement cooccurrence • Using the kappa statistic determined which pairs of statements were most closely correlated with the charismatic statement.

44. Text Study - Results • Those statements that positively cooccur with the charismatic are identical in the speech and text study • Charming, enthusiastic, persuasive, convincing, passionate

45. Text Study - Results • Speaker Influence • There is a significant difference between speakers (p=1.67e-10) • Most Charismatic: • Gen. Clark (3.61) • Sen. Kerry (3.56) • Gov. Dean (3.54) • Least Charismatic: • Sen. Lieberman (3.03) • Rep. Kucinich (3.12) • Amb. Mosley-Braun (3.23)

46. Text Study - Results • Genre Influence • Looking at only original speech tokens, genre demonstrates a significant influence on charisma (p=9.18e-14) • Stump (3.34) and debate (3.32) above mean (3.15) • Interview below mean (2.85)

47. Text Study - Results • Speaker Recognition • No speaker recognized by every subject, no subject recognized every speaker (mean=1.22) • Subjects rated recognized speakers (3.48) significantly more charismatic than those they did not (3.22).

48. Text Study - Results • Correlation of lexical properties with ratings of charisma • Function/Content word ratio • Positively correlated (p=.0058) • Pronoun density • First person very significant (p=1.4e-4) but negatively correlated. • Lexical complexity (mean syllables per word) • uncorrelated • Length • No correlation, however, the amount of time a subject spent on a particular token positively correlated (p=0.046) • Repetition • Weak positive correlation (p=0.0757) • Number of Disfluencies • Strongly negatively correlated (p=1.46e-7)

49. Overview • Background • Previous Work • Speech Study • Text Study • Conclusion • Future Work

50. Conclusion • “Enthusiasm, passion, charm, persuasion and being convincing” used to describe someone who they find “charismatic”. • Personal speech is considered more charismatic when heard, but not when read. • Emotion is largely insignificant to judgments of charisma. • The lexical and acoustic/prosodic properties reflect the presence of enthusiasm and passion