Takeaway 🏃

  • Zusammenfassung:: This study evaluates subject agreement on charisma ratings with respect to associated concepts such as leadership, intelligence, trustworthiness and communicative skills. The authors conclude that there is a common, shared functional definition of who is charismatic and who is not, although the influence of certain individual characteristics may vary.

  • Motivation:: “determining whether speakers who are judged charismatic share certain acoustic and prosodic characteristics, and how these interact with lexical content and syntactic form” (p. 640), differentiate between what is said and how it is said; ==define charisma==, aid speech synthesis and training; new perspective on how speech influences charisma

  • Ergebnisse:: subjects had a shared understanding of what they find charismatic; they also found there are common prosodic features like variability in pitch range

Keywords: charisma


  • 640 | Charisma is more difficult to define than identify
  • 640 | Separating content vs presentation
  • 640 | Weber 1947. Charisma given to you at birth; leadership and communication skills
  • 641 | Boss 1976. Having a mission in crisis
  • 641 | Bird 1993. Use in propagation of cults Note the dates
  • 641 | Hamilton and Stewart 1993. Dynamism – Competence – Trust
  • 641 | Touati 1993. Larger pitch range and more variation
  • 642 | Does charisma lead to higher agreement with a speaker?
  • 643 | Low agreement between subjects
  • 644 | Strong emotions (anger, passion) get rated more consistently but show no significant relationship to charisma; Charisma attributed to specific people
  • 645 | Number of words positive indicator
  • 646 | Confirm Touati’s claims (see above); - intensity/loudness, - inter-token rate
  • 647 | Faster speech seems more charismatic
  • 647 | Correlations to pitch contour, see Forward references
  • 647 | Claim that SAE might be overall more charismatic, based on prevalence of H* p.a.
  • 649 | Similar ratings across medium (audio/text): Charm, enthusiasm, persuasiveness and convincingness
  • 650 | Speakers less recognisable from written text, Recognition lead to higher perceived charisma
  • 651 | Spending more time answering the questions lead to higher ratings
  • 652 | Topic and genre, neutrality
  • 653 | Charisma does not exist in a vacuum
  • 655 | Inter-language differences need to be studied

Meta

Rosenberg, Andrew & Julia Hirschberg. 2009. Charisma Perception from Text and Speech. Speech Communication 51(7). 640–655. j.specom.2008.11.001.


Nach Gliederung

  • Einleitung
    • We don’t know what defines charisma. But we’re sure that people experience it similarly.
    • Focus on political speeches: Audiovisual or Written
    • Presentation vs Content
    • ? What leads to us thinking someone has stopped being charismatic? (e.g. I don’t think of Hitler as charismatic because I know who he was and what he did)
    • Communication: expressing common goals and ideas, not engaging in debate but persuading others
    • Motivation: enhance synthetic speech, identification of charismatic people, training opportunities
  • Literaturverweise
    • Common themes:
      • Leadership
      • Persuasion
      • Communication
      • Competence
      • Credibility
      • Faith/Trust
      • “Grace”/Gifted people
      • Inspirational
      • Dynamic
  • Methodologie
    • two empirical experiments
    • one online study with audio recordings
    • another one on transcriptions
      • spoken tokens + ones only sourced for text study from 26 sources
      • including disfluencies (makes reading quite, uh, unpleasant)
    • asked on scales of adjectives (see images)
    • it took them two hours
  • Fragestellungen
    • find common characteristics
  • Forschungsergebnisse
    • audio: mean kappa von 0.213 → low agreement
      • kappa for each segment:
    • agreement to charisma overall slightly lower
  • Diskussion
  • Fazit