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

Read up on

AM2 Charisma: ANOVA, Pearson’s R

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

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