Charismatic speech
Download
1 / 52

Charismatic Speech - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 167 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