charismatic speech
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Charismatic Speech

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 52

Charismatic Speech - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 168 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Charismatic Speech' - forest


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
charismatic speech

Charismatic Speech

Andrew Rosenberg

Spoken Language Processing

4/24/06

overview
Overview
  • Background
  • Previous Work
  • Speech Study
  • Text Study
  • Conclusion & Future Work
overview1
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
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
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
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
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
overview2
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
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
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
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
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
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

previous work hamilton stewart 3
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.
previous work hamilton stewart 4
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

overview3
Overview
  • Background
  • Previous Work
  • Speech Study
    • Questions
    • Description
    • Results
  • Text Study
  • Conclusion & Future Work
speech study questions
Speech Study - Questions
  • Do subjects agree about what is charismatic?
  • What do subjects mean by charismatic?
  • What makes speech charismatic?
speech study description
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
speech study description1
Speech Study - Description
  • Interface
    • http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~amaxwell/survey/
speech study description2
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
speech study description3
Speech Study - Description
  • Example Tokens:
    • 1.
    • 2.
    • 3.
    • 4.
speech study results
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
speech study results1
Most consistent statements

Charisma: 0.224 (8th)

Least consistent statements

Speech Study - Results
speech study results2
Speech Study - Results
  • Statement Co-occurrence
    • Using the kappa statistic determined which pairs of statements were most closely correlated with the charismatic statement.
speech study results3
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)
speech study results4
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.
speech study results5
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).
speech study results6
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
speech study results7
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
speech study results8
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
overview4
Overview
  • Background
  • Previous Work
  • Speech Study
  • Text Study
    • Questions
    • Description
    • Results
      • Comparisons to Speech results
  • Conclusion & Future Work
text survey questions
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
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
text survey description1
Text Survey - Description
  • Interface:
    • http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~amaxwell/textsurvey/A/
text study descrption
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
Text Study - Description
  • Examples:
    • Token 1:
text study description1
Text Study - Description
  • Examples:
    • Token 2.
text study description2
Text Study - Description
  • Examples
    • Token 3:
text study description3
Text Study - Description
  • Examples
    • Token 4:
text study description4
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
text study results
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
text study results1
Most consistent statements

Charisma: 0.134 (18th)

Least consistent statements

Text Study - Results
text study results2
Text Study - Results
  • Charismatic statement cooccurrence
    • Using the kappa statistic determined which pairs of statements were most closely correlated with the charismatic statement.
text study results3
Text Study - Results
  • Those statements that positively cooccur with the charismatic are identical in the speech and text study
    • Charming, enthusiastic, persuasive, convincing, passionate
text study results4
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)
text study results5
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)
text study results6
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).
text study results7
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)
overview5
Overview
  • Background
  • Previous Work
  • Speech Study
  • Text Study
  • Conclusion
    • Future Work
conclusion
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
conclusion1
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
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?
ad