charismatic speech andrew rosenberg spoken language processing 4/24/06

Charismatic Speech

Andrew Rosenberg

Spoken Language Processing

4/24/06

Overview

• Background• Previous Work• Speech Study• Text Study• Conclusion & Future Work

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

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”.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 fsd

c

a - attitude, f - force, s - source credibilityd - discrepancy, c - counterargument - impact parameter


• 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.


• Correlations between subject ratings and manipulated features were calculated using a causal modeling program, PATH.

Manipulatedintensity

Perceivedintensity

Extremity ofposition

Sourcedynamism

Sourcecompetence

Sourcetrustworthiness

.42

-.32

.73.52.78.64

-.18

“charisma sequence”

Overview

• Background• Previous Work• Speech Study

– Questions– Description– Results

• Text Study• Conclusion & Future Work

Speech Study - Questions

• Do subjects agree about what is charismatic?

• What do subjects mean by charismatic?

• What makes speech charismatic?

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


• Interface– http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~amaxwell/survey/

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~amaxwell/survey/


• 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


• Example Tokens:– 1. – 2.– 3.– 4.

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


• Most consistent statements

• Charisma: 0.224 (8th)

• Least consistent statements

The speaker is accusatory 0.512

The speaker is passionate 0.458

The speaker is intense 0.431

The speaker is angry 0.404

The speaker is enthusiastic 0.362

The speaker is trustworthy 0.037

The speaker is reasonable 0.070

The speaker is believable 0.074

The speaker is desperate 0.076

The speaker is ordinary 0.115


• Statement Co-occurrence– Using the kappa statistic determined which

pairs of statements were most closely correlated with the charismatic statement.


The speaker is charming 0.602

The speaker is persuasive 0.561

The speaker is boring -0.513


The speaker is convincing 0.503


• 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)


• 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.

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).


• 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


• 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

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

Overview

• Background• Previous Work• Speech Study• Text Study

– Questions– Description– Results

• Comparisons to Speech results

• Conclusion & Future Work

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?

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

http://newyork.craigslist.org/

Text Survey - Description

• Interface:– http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~amaxwell/textsurvey/A/

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~amaxwell/textsurvey/A/

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

Text Study - Description

• Examples:– Token 1:

We’re driving seniors out of medicare into HMOs. Every provision that would’ve brought down the cost of prescription drugs, the drug companies were against em all. They all came out.


• Examples:– Token 2.

…and I’d like to begin by, saying that I hope that, this afternoon’s talk will be an opportunity to challenge some underlying assumptions that we have about the world cause that’s why I’m uh running for President.


• Examples– Token 3:

…stabilize iraq because we occupy it. Yet he will not talk about the deficits in the fifty states we already occupy.


• Examples– Token 4:

…by two thousand five and then let their parents on a sliding scale based on income buy into medicaid at a price much below what they’d have to pay in the market.


• 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

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


• Most consistent statements

• Charisma: 0.134 (18th)

• Least consistent statements

The speaker is accusatory 0.280

The speaker is angry 0.263

The speaker’s message is clear 0.206

The speaker is friendly 0.197

The speaker is knowledgeable 0.193

The speaker is spontaneous

0.039

The speaker is ordinary 0.048

The speaker is boring 0.050

The speaker is desperate 0.064



• Charismatic statement cooccurrence– Using the kappa statistic determined which

pairs of statements were most closely correlated with the charismatic statement.

The speaker is charming 0.576


The speaker is persuasive 0.503

The speaker is powerful 0.485

The speaker is convincing 0.483



• Those statements that positively cooccur with the charismatic are identical in the speech and text study– Charming, enthusiastic, persuasive, convincing,

passionate


• 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)


• 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)


• 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).


• 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)

Overview

• Background

• Previous Work

• Speech Study

• Text Study

• Conclusion– Future Work

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

Conclusion

• Broadly, this type of approach can be applied to any paralinguistic phenomena.– Make no assumptions about the phenomena a

priori– Have subjects evaluate examples that are

presumed to demonstrate the phenomena– Analyze the examples, using subject ratings as

dependent variable.

Conclusion - Future Work

• Further analysis of speech vs. transcription results• TTS modification study.

– By modifying prosody of tokens can we make Lieberman charismatic? Sharpton uncharismatic?

• Repetition of the both studies with Palestinian Arabic political speech tokens.– What are the similarities and differences between

American and Palestinian notions of charisma?– What lexical and acoustic/prosodic properties are

displayed by charismatic Palestinian speech?

charismatic speech andrew rosenberg spoken language processing 4/24/06

Documents

speech slide

study charismatic speech

speech monographs41

charisma convincing

religious charisma

door charisma

cluster analysis cluster

social context of charisma