1. 9/5/20051 Acoustic/Prosodic and Lexical Correlates of Charismatic Speech Andrew Rosenberg & Julia Hirschberg Columbia University Interspeech 2005 - Lisbon

2. 9/5/20052 Why study charismatic speech? Construction of a feedback system for public speakers, (politicians, academic instructors, etc.) Identification of potential charismatic leaders Automatic generation of “charismatic-like” speech

3. 9/5/20053 What is charisma? Not “closed door” or one-on-one 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, Castro. Charismatic speech: Speech that encourages listeners to perceive the speaker as “charismatic”.

4. 9/5/20054 Goals of this study Determine to what degree subjects agree as to the charisma of a speaker. Determine the existence and identify a functional definition of charisma. Identify acoustic/prosodic and lexical properties of speech that communicate charisma

5. 9/5/20055 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 about the speaker. Duration: avg. 1.5 hrs, min 45m, max ~3hrs

6. 9/5/20056 Study Description Interface –http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~amaxwell/survey/

7. 9/5/20057 Study Description Materials: 45 tokens of American political speech from late ’03 and early ‘04 Speakers: 9 Candidates for Democratic Party’s nomination for President –Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, Moseley Braun, Sharpton Topics: Postwar Iraq, Healthcare, Bush’s Tax plan, Reason for Running, Content-Neutral

8. 9/5/20058 How much do subjects agree with one another? Using the weighted kappa statistic with quadratic weighting, mean  = 0.213 –Do subjects agree about what is charismatic?  = 0.224 (8 th ) Inter-subject agreement by token –No significant differences across all tokens Inter-subject agreement by statement –The individual statements demonstrate significantly different agreements

9. 9/5/20059 What do subjects mean by “charismatic”? 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

10. 9/5/200510 Does the identity of the speaker affect judgments of charisma? 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)

11. 9/5/200511 Does the genre or topic of speech affect judgments of charisma? 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 does not affect ratings of charisma.

12. 9/5/200512 Does recognizing a speaker affect judgments of charisma? Subjects were asked to identify which, if any, speakers they recognized at the end of the study. Subjects rated recognized speakers (3.28) significantly more charismatic than those they did not (2.99).

13. 9/5/200513 What makes speech charismatic? Acoustic/Prosodic and Lexical Properties Examined Duration (secs) Min, max, mean, stdev F0 –Raw and normalized by speaker Min, max, mean, stdev intensity Number of intonational, intermediate, and internal phrases Mean and stdev of normalized F0 and intensity across phrases Speaking rate (syls/sec) Length (words, syllables) 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd person pronoun density Function to content word ratio Mean syllables/word Mean words per intermediate and intonational phrase

14. 9/5/200514 What makes speech charismatic? Properties showing positive correlation with charisma More Content –Length in secs, words, syllables, and phrases Higher and more dynamic raw F0 –Min, max, mean, std. dev. of F0 over male speakers Greater intensity –Mean intensity Higher in a speaker’s pitch range –Mean normalized F0

15. 9/5/200515 Faster speaking rate –Syllables per second Greater variation of F0 and intensity across phrases –Std. dev. of normalized phrase F0 and intensity The use of more first person pronouns –First person pronoun density The use of polysyllabic words –Lexical complexity (mean syllables per word)

16. 9/5/200516 Conclusions There is substantial individual differences in subject perception of charisma. There exists a common, functional definition of charisma. –Namely, “charismatic is enthusiastic, charming, convincing, persuasive, powerful and not boring” Broadly, dynamic speech – loud, high in the pitch range – using first person pronouns is associated with charisma.

17. 9/5/200517 Future Research Isolate the lexical component of speech to determine the relative influences of what is said and how it is said. Adjust acoustic/prosodic features to generate more/less charismatic speech Study communication of charisma in other languages, specifically Palestinian Arabic.