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

3. Overview Background Previous Work Speech Study Text Study Conclusion & Future Work

4. 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

5. 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”.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.

16. Previous Work - Hamilton & Stewart (4) Correlations between subject ratings and manipulated features were calculated using a causal modeling program, PATH. Manipulated intensity Perceived intensity Extremity of position Source dynamism Source competence Source trustworthiness.42 -.32.73.52.78.64 -.18 “charisma sequence”

17. Overview Background Previous Work Speech Study –Questions –Description –Results Text Study Conclusion & Future Work

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

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. Speech Study - Description Example Tokens: –1. –2. –3. –4.

23. 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

24. Speech Study - Results Most consistent statements Charisma: 0.224 (8 th ) Least consistent statements The speaker is accusatory0.512 The speaker is passionate0.458 The speaker is intense0.431 The speaker is angry0.404 The speaker is enthusiastic0.362 The speaker is trustworthy0.037 The speaker is reasonable0.070 The speaker is believable0.074 The speaker is desperate0.076 The speaker is ordinary0.115

25. Speech Study - Results Statement Co-occurrence –Using the kappa statistic determined which pairs of statements were most closely correlated with the charismatic statement. The speaker is enthusiastic0.606 The speaker is charming0.602 The speaker is persuasive0.561 The speaker is boring-0.513 The speaker is passionate0.512 The speaker is convincing0.503

26. 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)

27. 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.

28. 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).

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

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

33. 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?

34. Text Survey - Description Subjects: 24 paid participants found –http://newyork.craigslist.orghttp://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

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

36. 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

37. 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.

38. Text Study - Description 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.

39. Text Study - Description Examples –Token 3: …stabilize iraq because we occupy it. Yet he will not talk about the deficits in the fifty states we already occupy.

40. Text Study - Description 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.

41. 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

42. 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

43. Text Study - Results Most consistent statements Charisma: 0.134 (18 th ) Least consistent statements The speaker is accusatory0.280 The speaker is angry0.263 The speaker’s message is clear0.206 The speaker is friendly0.197 The speaker is knowledgeable0.193 The speaker is spontaneous 0.039 The speaker is ordinary0.048 The speaker is boring0.050 The speaker is desperate0.064 The speaker is enthusiastic0.093

44. Text Study - Results Charismatic statement cooccurrence –Using the kappa statistic determined which pairs of statements were most closely correlated with the charismatic statement. The speaker is charming0.576 The speaker is enthusiastic0.511 The speaker is persuasive0.503 The speaker is powerful0.485 The speaker is convincing0.483 The speaker is passionate0.446

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

46. 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)

47. 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)

48. 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).

49. 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)

50. Overview Background Previous Work Speech Study Text Study Conclusion –Future Work

51. 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

52. 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.

53. 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?