1 / 52

Charismatic Speech

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

istas
Télécharger la présentation

Charismatic Speech

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

More Related