Embed code
you have to earn fifty you know nine hopefully stimulate further discussion
with the people um uh that were working full screen
um hum a measuring christmas so this is a a project that i've
been uh working on since the about two thousand and five
um and that's actually how i got in touch with the the up is that i had there
seen a study published i'm in uh the gentle signs which
showed that people um to a naive about um
um pretend is a two on the political race were able to
reliably detect you would when i'm snooty by rating the faces
of when and run up so when i saw the side try to replicate these results and actually added in switzerland
um and i try to understand uh why this was happening and we ran the study with little children
and uh lo and behold who actually reliably to able to
detect would win election races looking at facial appearance
um and that really great keeper told me because um this was right after i got ten yeah then you know i'm a professor leadership
can you imagine a what i'm supposed to to teach if the ability to you'd already
uh depends on on how charismatic one looks so i started this research program to see whether
we could go beyond what um people usually do it's a heuristic process of observing
classifying and filling in the blanks so depending on how symmetrical the person
is on different features on that will very quickly put them in
a box and then uh put a price on the tag if they look like a million dollars they fill in the blanks
and assume the person has lots of positive characteristics if they don't look like a million dollars well they are pretty much
in trouble so the idea was how can we get people to go beyond initial classifications on the base of look
height six age gender ethnicity all these things matter very very much in
in leadership that's why i believe we have lots of incompetent people in positions of power it's precisely because
oh all this problem and and plated written about a long time ago in the republican said
imagine a captain of the bow to store line stronger than any of the crew
is a little blind has a similar in for meeting hearing and is
knowledge of navigation is not much better uses allegory to actually
suggest that democracies would be doomed to selecting people who
look the roll but maybe we're not the best
qualified to do so so the whole um a research that i've been doing has been um
um i'm motivated by this we we managed to publish operating signs as a followup paper
to that article uh by todd irvin and that's actually we don't need to huh
uh so the study in he was running some stuff on faces and then it would be tough to herve
a little while ago am i was trying to write in the l. c. ground which was not successful but we managed to
do a anything as follow up and then uh i got in touch with phil and that's where we are today
so let me quickly introduce you to the topic of charisma how we've measured that how we've manipulated and then
maybe see what uh we can do with that with that phil and and he's group so the
in my field charisma and a theory call transformational transaction leadership is very dominant
um but the problem is in my field is typically people use observation
all data to make causal inferences and which is highly problematic
um so for example when when when people ask a research is ask
um fall was of you just write how really to behave so accent how charismatic there those ratings
uh very the idiosyncratic that depend on many on model courses for example how you look
um for example if they know that you've been successful said a lot of problems which
we call a indulge in eighty problems and originality means that the variable better
starting is not exhaustion is it's an dawson is it depends on other variables in
the system of equations and may be omitted from the system up quite
so why is it is seen as powerful and confident if you don't model
that then uh what correlation you find between charisma not comes maybe biased
um leaders may change the behaviour as a function of follow up before it's all how much they like the fall well
so we have lots of problems yeah um and using questionnaire measures
which which is traditionally done in mention signs in psychology
yeah they asked people to respond to question there and then they use um the
variance in the questionnaires to predict outcomes doesn't really help us very much
thereby spot lots of things related variables and what we call
performance pure facts knowledge of outcomes on knowledge of reputation
biases the person in in how they write the um the target um and in the other problem is
that charisma has been defined in really strange ways which is not amenable to scientific studies so
how does my means gift a gift of grace originally these people had a nice line to some variety and
could predict the future and had a gift uh to do um uh amazing feats um so you know
identifying charisma as a quality ability will gift of the leader doesn't help because what's the nature of the skiff
i'm suggesting that these people like exceptional extraordinary exemplary
useful to logical by definition how charismatic
leaders inspirational and locating um you know as a whole bunch of stuff which
um interview that we recently did we found that that they were not very
useful top come so we never down things that we could reliably detect
and exhaustion is the manipulate 'em to determine how where the charisma could actually metaphor
anything um uh at the organisational level so there's a whole bunch of stuff
um so i mean divine related i mean people are actually write papers about that i mean how can we test some of these things
um so the way in which we have to find kristen with my colleagues is that it's to do with signalling it's a
signal that is designed to communicate just like an animal communicates
a peacock communicate certain things by how which struts around
oh uh_huh symmetrically does so um you know the pea hen is looking for certain things
which will suggest that uh the the the the the the peacock as um
something that's uh that i can help you and we been officially reproduction of the same thing fall for leadership
m. m. signal has to be honest and the signal has to be costly you know flying around with a big tail
um is is not the most uh the best way to fly around if you're peacock you better of having a small it up
but if you have a big tell that symmetrical and beautiful and you can afford to
have produced that tail and then carry around suggest that your strong and and fit
signalling charismatic leader also um has certain aspects to it which is costly
because um the signal is not amenable just twenty one to produce a one has to be able um to
have a vast repertoire of of artistic communication means which i will show you know a little bit
um uh ever started these you wrote a lot about um um the art
of of using metaphor one in any in the poetic it said
if i'm the those who are able to master the art of producing
symbolic and metaphorical communication mechanisms other ones who he would
in his books classifies being very very smart
um so it's it's the ability to communicate symbolically stand for
something represents something something that would trigger an image
um based on some values that you defend and this is very costly because the more these values
um target specific sector of of the population of people of the more likely you are to be
hated by by people who don't shake event so you know a bomber is objectively charismatic
um but you know he's completely hated by people who don't share views of ideology okay
so so that it based communication mechanisms also cost in a sense
that um it does sort the market but it does improve the thickness of the people listening
to speak why what the ones you like billy that um no what the distance fall and
the ones you don't like the data or also may appreciate that because the the
this communicating coming information to them just like you know if we're gonna be two balls
about to fight over to how you know if i look heavier than you
um even though you know you're not gonna be able to reproduce with the cow i didn't help improve your fitness
by the fact that you know i'm posturing in a in a you know why that
signals high um have you full don't even try um to mess with me
so you know you'll go find another car that will be happy to uh deal with young
apologies for using such file and grotesque metaphors is just trying to get the point across
um so we have evidence um that charisma can been trained so we can take people
and we can teach them to behave in in ways
that resemble what we see as being charismatic okay
which means we can teach them to use small um effectively body language but also rhetorical techniques
and that's what i'm gonna focus the token today is how we speak what we said
um we know that it makes people seymour prototypical is leaders um we know that in abstract lab
settings people exposed to charismatic leaders perform better than people who are not exposed to charismatic leaders
um it matters much in situations of attribution ambiguity
um what does that mean um we have a model to predict the us presidential elections on the basis
of macroeconomic data and also who's more charismatic and and what turns out is that when macroeconomic data
do not sufficient to give a strong enough signal as to
whether we should reward or punish the incumbent party
that was when performance signals of fuzzy about the state of the economy then people look to see who would make
the better commander in chief who to trust me essentially who's more charismatic so we actually do pretty well
in predicting our sample biggest presidential elections um on the model that we've
developed that goes back to nineteen sixty now obviously we have very
few data points um so we have to be very very careful on econometrics of it because elections only happened once every four yeah
um it correlates with effect in the south comes up the score let's means nothing to me because a correlation
if it's indulge in eighty plague doesn't mean anything that correlation could be due to limited
calls and in fact maybe there is no correlation it's just the speeches correlate
so we don't have any colette causal evidence in my feel believe it or not even know max weber
first wrote about uh charisma uh about forty fifty years ago um zone uh wrote about it
in biblical writings about a hundred or two hundred years ago it's also been found in
in um in different references uh in in ancient greek mythology the graces and and cares what was one of them
but there hasn't been a well designed field experiments showing that it really matters
closely for performance outcomes sorry do show unit field experiment we did
some experiments that we replicating the lad and then some observation all data that
we also gathered and that's when working on with with l. i'm too
to show how we haven't rebel what charisma is and and how
we can measure it um and and manipulated so the idea
i guess we you use more about the identifying features and how we can reliably detect them using some kind of a elder them
um so in the first study this was done by um uh my colleagues uh china data uh um
christian send under better whether they're economists a foot and it really matters
to show the economic case about why why charisma ease is
essential is very nice to say well you know like this person's
possible great product typical are you willing to exert costly effort
to help this um the the really fight will conquer ties the division
so what we did is we went to birmingham still charity
in england conveniently so because she was doing a post doc inch was located in bombing them at the time
and used in a post doc with a rubber to web and um we
help them to raise some money um by hiring workers to stuff envelopes
to stand up to do a big mess mailing in england so what we did is we were to add
the code at the code um has um um i don't know if you know they do uh
the the the help of people um uh to to get intemperate jobs and job placement
so they have a database of lots of people who are out of a job and you don't want to do a little uh job here and there
um so we went to add the code and um they put
advertisements to the u. usual channels to hire temporary workers
what what we called for a mail sorting a task the
what is that not knowing they were participating in experiment
and but still we do not use deception i think i need to say this very explicitly
um because economists and cognitive and a dash of psychologist like like uh like i am
i typically um when we do an experiment we try to be very transparent about about everything and
we don't lie to people by by saying things that an auction in here we ops
for kate to the fact that we um we using different motivational resumes so you
know imagine you come to work for me and i might expose you to
one kind a manager who pretty soon one way and another can't imagine bush another
way we wanna see whether that will affect one person's performance um differentially
um so what we did is we put a recruitment campaign up um we were gonna
pay the minimum wage twenty eight pounds for for three hours of of work
plus training class we paid um um for um a transfer compensation for one hour travel
and the idea was that they knew that we're gonna come in workforce put three hours and they would never see them again
so the idea is can we set up an experiment um that will really
test in a strong way the closer the impact of charisma on outcomes
so what we did is that workers had to assemble different things i'll show you some some pictures in a minute
a fundraising letter envelopes the nation cards in a large envelope um you know we pay them for a certain amount
of time and that was guaranteed wall workers got the minimum wage okay um they would brief by nectar
but they were sorted in one of three conditions randomly and they assemble the mature at home
so it was done without supervision that's very critical um so if we wanna test
with the something really works and and and creates this warm glow intrinsic
motivation that people suppose well then we're gonna do it without
um i'm checking on what they're doing but we will check the output and we will check the quality of the output later
so this is basically the room in which we briefed the work 'cause i'm the acting came in here they were
briefed uh in batches of eight to ten they had two bags each weighing about five kilos about eleven pounds
um we protested to see how much an average person uh could carry for
about half an hour um because these people must using public transport
so the uh the the experiment to show what job i had
to do back to comes in and just five minute manipulation
um on how they should do the job and the importance of the double show you the video in a minute
um some of the letters we put we had printing errors on on purpose
and actually it happened kind of random is with you know with plan for it it happened nonetheless
um and the idea was that one of the treatment conditions has monetary incentives
to do well so because they monitoring centres it's there in in in their interest to stuff anything in the envelopes
even if it's not a a good quality data so we gonna tell them you know please sort out the bad quality letters
right on the for what the problem was that will probably follow up so probably the for the problems with a brochure
so you know that we we we set up in such a way that it was impossible for
anybody to finish three hundred fifty units in three hours in fact the average worker did
in a pilot test that we rent two hundred units in three also just play that in my two hundred
units used in three hours is what the base rate is so what we're gonna do is um
we're gonna observe the performance um in these good situation so we slow
them down by putting mistakes inadequate staff things fall them in
particular things we have a twenty four point checklist um and we gonna randomly sample from the workers once they give us
um but the the the labour the fruit available back we gonna randomly sample to see that they followed all instruct
okay so the gullible that staff put it neatly folding branches put it in the box and then come back the next day
so we randomised the workers to one of three conditions everyone has a guaranteed fixed which so you do
what you did you do three hundred and fifty units you'd he's gonna get the minimum wage okay
um what we manipulate is whether they get a standard speech or charismatic speech which
i will explain to you in a few minutes the charismatic um um speech
yeah is now gonna be compared to a standard speech when we get the p. straight save the wood
'cause stuff more than two hundred twenty overlaps we will pay them a little bonus of twelve pants
um yeah that's about twenty cents so five when perhaps give them a frank
so the idea is yeah we we mathematically figure out what to
set the bonus add to keep the cost per unit of the same as yeah because this what is gonna a lot more money
but we need to maintain the cost per unit approximately every talking up a bonus of one pound that
break the back strong with to do it so we figure out the maximum bonus we could pay
to to stimulate productivity such that in economic theory suggested approximately we should get a
twenty percent increase in performance from the street she but the question was
if instead of giving a standard speech if we substituted the stand speech or the charismatic speech and
still pick the fixed wage could we introduce some um extra performs now we do have
a a mathematical model and some theory to explain what our production side it's not here
um i don't have in here just so that we can focus on other things but we do have some some very specific predictions
um so the subjects were on like this um we randomly assigned them to
uh uh um five uh three session blocks of the course of the day it's session last about thirty minutes
um and then um they summoned signed up to come back the next
day with a with a stuff so the speech regulation followed
some of the previous uh basically the research that i've done we we we
we we train people to be charismatic and we did some lab experiments
and then also in the study that i told you we we predict the us presidential elections
now the speeches had the same amount of words said the same thing at approximately the same time
so we have exactly the same them on the facts on the subjects
but what we manipulating the charismatic speech is that we use mall
i'm a symbolic communication mechanisms visionary symbolic communication one show you an example of this
so the idea is we don't wanna have a confound yeah by changing the information content and the delivery
we try to hold the content to saying change the delivery mechanism
in terms of body language use but also the visionary feeds
um the two speeches then um had the same number of words very similar content but the christmas
speech relies more on certain features which we have
identified to help trigger visual imagery is
um frame the message and and defend some kind of substantive what would be a logical a plaque
from so for example we use metaphors metaphor triggers an image makes it easy to remember
can understand much better what the person is saying so for example we compared the letter to
a ticket to attend christmas and we went back to this to get metaphor coupler time
um we use stories and anecdotes you will see a in a couple of minutes when i'll play a section of
the speech you know too much of a story of an old man now when you tell a story
people get captivated by the story if it's told properly they see themselves in the story they identify with the protagonist
and then they remember the moral in a visual and easy to understand why
contrast not yet to do this you get to do that ask not what your country can do for you but
what you can do for your country even you know george bush who we studied also in a in a
in the yeah study on on on a on a on presidents you know
it's had some memorable sayings either you with that's on the water or
what does everybody with that's all
against us yeah exactly so you know these things make it memorable and to find what you should do this is what
shouldn't be makes things black and white helps to frame the message so force is really important to frame the message
point to where you want the people to listen to but using visual imagery is posing questions using
contrast and then defend the substance and then the liberty in a in a way that's energetic
i'm posing rhetorical questions creating intrigue makes a person look for the answer
saying things in three it's it's much more easy to remember three partners
then uh twenty seven populist usable memorable it more with me
i'm expressing the sentiments of how people feel putting into words which closes
the psychological distance between the order to and the person listing
setting goals that uh makes people feel that they are able and
capable and increases the feelings of of a efficacious nuts
i'm giving concern is that the goals can be achieved and then various nonverbal techniques i'm not gonna focus too much on that because we're not
for the purpose of what we're doing that also interested to uh right now we all would
like one day to incorporate the nonverbal techniques but first we gonna focus on the record
moral conviction is also something that's the values that i told you that the defence
um but because this fundraising campaign was done in the context
over charity we hold constant d. um moral conviction
in both speeches okay 'cause we don't
want that just simply because was a model class can it be used more references
that that was driving there's also with exactly the same amount of more of the monsoon both speeches we hold that counts
okay just to show you an example i'm gonna just for back um to um the the
speech made bob barker bomber a little part of it at the democratic national convention
so i'm gonna just play through and then i'm gonna analysts it for you to show you what kind of features we look for okay
um so here we go so this is done now one week after the republicans have
done their um convention and um i'll buy my is talking about the republicans convention
uh oh i guess ah or
oh oh oh oh oh
ah ah ah ow
ah so he's in a lot of these uh techniques that we've uh been
identifying over the years um i'll just break it down first uh
i'm in a in a kind of object away and then just recap what he said so firstly if you
notice the speech is broken up into three three heartless that's an interesting um thing that he does
um he uses and and anecdotes so immediately he says what our friends down in tech in tampa
yesterday of a week before so everyone knows what the republicans would doing that and typically
what the republicans do at the conference at the convention what's the single thing that wish to
defend is we need to reduce taxes so if economy's doing well what should we do
he just acts if she's going badly which we do reduce taxes says like these people doing so this is one big metaphor
yes the doctor the republican the passion as a disease we given medicine the patient
does not exhibit the disease would give the saying madison this is ludicrous
so it's all one big metaphor okay and in english when the doctor doesn't know what you have what do they say take two aspirin then
call me in the morning so this is where this last saying come from so yes an anecdote which immediately triggers a visual
and what they're probably can stand for you does need to explain it explicitly everyone knows what this is gonna be with
any you they separates what they want from what i want to make
his position very clear that's what a contrast they want to vote
but i don't want you to know the plan and that's because all they have to face the same prescription benevolence that
so that's where the metal begins with rhetorical question rhetorical
question rhetorical question on science the onset using metaphor
and one other technique which is a bit dangerous to use its human we not coding for
that because it's a little bit difficult to detect um um at this point in time
um so we wrote the speeches i'm gonna show you the speeches in a minute um and then we
have trained clued is and this is way i hope the the apple able to to help because
this takes a long time i have a coding manual which i should by the way make available to you which we used
to train humans you take several weeks to train a human to be able to extract these features reliably and correlate highly
with um me and and and the future car and and the benjamin to uh
who developed the score this manual so we use what's called a
kappa statistic it's a way to quantify agreement between writers
so what once wrote the speech we gave it to the strain code is to see
how much we could um um um um explain the difference between the two speeches
so for example the non charismatic speech had forty one sentences um we had a
pretty good agreement um charismatic speech would yeah it a pretty good agreement
and we had pretty high kappa statistic what's important to show here is that non charismatic speech
at only sixteen out of forty one sentences that were charismatic about thirty nine percent
and the charismatic speech was about it ninety one percent this difference in proportions was
highly significant we also looked at nonverbal behaviour facial expression and body language
um and again we had very very significant meaning a signalling
um from the body language so um we also
did a check way we asked people to watch the videos that were not part of the experiment
to see whether they sold differences in the speech is now these two things measure moral conviction
and notice there's no difference between those two speeches because we help the constant so that's important
however the charismatic speech was more inspiring and and the person
he out was much was seen as a mall
i'm i'm i'm a prototypical either nice very important i'm running
an experiment yeah weep that's costing us thousands of pounds
and we don't expose the workers who have the non charismatic speech to really cracked speech you gonna see it now it's not
a bad speech at all in fact it's a very good speech so what we do is we comparing are really good
non charismatic speech with a with a charismatic speech so let me let me just show you
what it looks like this is the actor
user name is richard activity is great grandfather was actually
clement aptly prime minister in england just before the
second world war
so i'm gonna show you that the introduction the middle part and the conclusion so i'm just
taking a snippet of about one minute from each speech and i'm marking up the features
that the act to uses what he's saying them only the rhetorical features the
body language is quite obvious you gonna see when he's doing it okay
um and then we will again i'll show you what happened in experiment and i'll show you some of experiments that we've run
okay so here's the introduction from the non charismatic version of the speech
you know because let's yeah all the all the oh yeah
sure yeah oh because it will release was was no
this is on this list which ah it's a ah well okay for you you know
okay so the charismatic version of this
well let's see ah over the uh oh yeah
and where there is that's for sure and from that should give a group so
huh huh huh huh huh huh huh what are your goals
okay from the middle part now which trying to get them to stop as many on the lips as possible so well well just or
well oh yes alright well you this for a while or as well
uh it's where the first one or or or or was it those are great
yeah oh yeah yeah yeah maybe also one is ah oh
so who has to joe was uh the best uh it was a real or not
oh this was to so would you agree this is not a bad speech or
not a bad speech at all how can we put some charisma into that
oh wow what a room
it was a raw raw oh or are you still for c. uh huh huh
you should ah ah style
oh well uh huh uh huh uh huh ah ah ah ah bee house or
or a ah
ooh this and uh well
uh_huh ah
'kay the finale
just before the works out well for that so they work and what was the last
please do this yeah 'cause this one oh oh sure
mm or or or they will he walks out so we don't have any other interaction of
contamination between him and the group so it dissipates is i gotta go now and
uh that is uh
you should yeah
so er works for it
uh you know i ever for
or was it
and uh
how to roller group right
now when mine condoms friends all this they're like walked whispering normal
ups flying starvation plastic it's crazy no way you know
i to fly out there to train the act the way to pay a deco we had
to pay a you know where to pay the bill for printing because the work is
anyway well managed to convince them that we run this um seven was done as
you say this was the font versions studio what he did we also
folding doing it live with it with a camera in front with a there
was a on on the computer um so we ran the study
and are low and behold the baseline group actually got more than two hundred and the pilot which
means that really we didn't give a bad speech was not a bad speech piece right
coincidentally really i'm incredibly of followed very closely economic
theory this is a paper from it
would lead lessee uh a very well known unlike the economist we actually was uh
sharing a bush's economic council we've got twenty percent exactly way
economic theory would predict but this we were very surprise
charisma was able to um uh uh um i get this statistically equal results
and and around here we don't pay the bonuses at these workers on a
lot more money um and yeah we don't pay anything um extra
this is the interesting thing so for the baseline group the cost was about fourteen pen spawned a lot
slightly higher for the peach right the reason why this was size because the baseline good did more
than what we uh expected him to do we think about two hundred two hundred ten
but here's the cool part we reduced the cost per units by about nineteen percent
why we got the same performs as speech right but we didn't pay the bonuses these workers and i had a lot more money ten
twelve twenty pounds more on average and all the other workers okay um so you can see some us the the more uh
more information yeah so you know about ten pounds some and a lot more 'cause they went all the way up to three fifty um so you can see
how many we have maximum number of let's completed not remember somebody's led is uh i had had mistakes in them right
not is the interesting thing the average quality index was no different they
all did the job very seriously which is very important to show
that this was not a failed experiment in that the workers were not
just doing whatever what we kind of captures intrinsic motivation okay
and cost the lead a um on average relative quality of of of perfect quality okay
um you can see this is the distribution of the works performance and charisma pushers
a bunch of people right right to maximum performance that that that um um as compared to the other treatments
so what we try to do then is replicate these results in a public good game where we have another trained actor
it's gonna brief foreplay as well playing anonymously that or no
who they place how will will either have lintel computer the computers are talking to each other
you're gonna see the same video which is gonna make a demand effect for you to contribute money
to public good so what does this mean in economics we wanna capture with a you
are gonna be identifying with the the because what the the the the sense to you but also what your belief
is about what you think about people will do when you have a coordination problem okay so what happens
we give you money twenty points twenty points that we can put the money and then you have the
choice you can keep this money in your pocket we can put it into a public a cow
if you can't we will multiply it by certain multiple kinda and then give it back to everybody
now the practical solution here are the best possible so i'll come for everyone is that we all put our money that
this man is multiplied and install divided but free is the dominant strategy is to hope that
these three of the dice are dumb enough to put that money in the pot
you keep your money the money gets multiplied and then you get a shape back
of the multiplication and the money okay so this is the dominant strategy
everyone is not so stupid 'cause everyone knows the dominant strategy and what happens is as
soon as i see someone defecting 'cause we're gonna play this game over twenty rounds
you know people are pretty much good well they're gonna put some money in the public account
but if they see that the arsenal putting in stride when i think i'm not
any good i'm not gonna get taken for right and they immediately defect okay so what
we're gonna do nice compared to standard public goods again we we have no
two moms on them with the charismatic speech to one with is a charismatic speech and the control speech to see what
happens to contributions over time so we have three different groups
so here's how we convert the points yeah the readings
place observe the decisions of group members after every round we also asked them
what do you think your group members are gonna do next raw
okay so we measure the beliefs and they preferences may reveal preferences by what they do
same acted delivering um this a similar speech uh we have exactly the same
thing as before but now the speeches about contributing to public good
um same number of words should be the same amount of facts we go through all the grim statistics and all that stuff soul that's okay
i'm just so you can see we have twenty four tactics used in the charismatic speech and non in the
non charismatic speech so this is what we manipulated um so just give you money to read this
so the way this is written is typically how you would hear a micro economist explaining the
tragedy of the commons okay and how can we be checked is a little bit more
to talk about in terms of the tragedy that comes have your the tragedy of the commons opposes a common grazing wrong
for the farmers to share a common interest is to protect the grazing got so it would covers a new grass can draw on it
it is in the common interest of the farmers to cooperate in finnish underground because with cooperation i could all benefit however each format
may the selfish interest rate is uh how cookouts grace as much as possible but if all of
our must do that the common good will break down the field will turn from a screen
grass in too much so much more visual but given exactly the same information
we have the same actor i'm a young guy non charismatic version charismatic version
and we observe that the contributions over time uh as a function
of the treatments so you see we increase by about ten percent these
countries now this is not the individual effort this is trusting whether
you believe that when lisa started it was gonna charge at the same time
so this is a very very strong test now the difference is between
be a these three means is not significant so we try to understand why and we running up some follow up
a experiments to see but just to show you how quickly the public good breaks down in the control group
so you see when you put the non charismatic speech does bring it up so this is significant difference between these two and the controls speech
but this time there's no significant difference between the two speeches so it does break down also but that
but we do sustain a lot higher at least in initial around a lot higher contributions um
we didn't have the experiment way we matched what contributions then make it probably good to charity
just to compare again the two speeches and again the charismatic speech testing to do something
but again here we're not measuring individual effort we measuring beliefs
and preferences and actually selfish uh whether we can affect they um they on um
a utility economic utility okay so um we're running a now another study where we will
make sure that everyone has access to the same video because in private
booths analyse with the other c. perhaps case they may not
think that everyone is sort of your so one treatment be doing is that they're gonna see the video together so for people
not for people everyone in the treatment before we randomised them there was you all the videos together and then
we randomised into treatment so everyone knows is all the videos so that's the first thing we gonna do
and the second thing we're gonna do is we're gonna do an individual effort tossed in the lead we can perfect observe what they doing
um to see whether we can affect this significantly but anyway this to experience i don't consider them completely fail but they
still line forming us on how we can better test this so in terms of i'm studying i'm naturally occurring charisma
and this is what the data now that we shared with phil um we took a random sample of two hundred forty tight tops now
um why ted talks they done in a similar platform they have um a similar
structure similar timeframe um all these people highly coach so i've you know it
still but we have huge variance in the features in the talks so what we're gonna do detect random sample the talks
we just take the transcript of what they say and i give it to three code is to extract the features
so we know how well the code is code with each other we have that's just external that little works very nicely
we control for how famous the person is by looking appealing from that we keep your page a few months before they gave the talk
because you know it by the the talk it was gonna want to take pop up because that feels good but because it's been
so we also take photographs of the person's face and i run a separate study on how attractive they are
because we know you look more tractable sexy people are gonna just click
on it just to see a more statically pleasing human being
just that by itself predicts highly we the people are gonna be a gonna go and watch
the table so we control for everything in can imagine where the top was given
um and the g. d. p. of the country the population of the country in which it was
given because i could also drive of used interaction do the things the colours they wearing
the job they do i mean is it intrigue and things because of course i haven't manipulated the so they could be in georgia native
but here's the interesting thing you put twenty more of these charismatic tactics in speech
um you increase used by forty four percent which is a huge effect
so the average tech talk is about here in terms of charismatic tactics which is weird i mean this huge variance
in these things and you want to know what what the hell are these people doing um
you know when when they put them up in the train them to give each tool
um so this is not what we have allies into c.
can the computer um correlated highly with the three humans
who did this and also predict the views independently of the human so this is what we're doing right now
um we replicate this also into that we follow thirty politicians and thirty c. e. o.'s
over three months we talk about three thousand treats randomly from with a treat it
and then we have a panel model all the time so we control for the number follow was
they have because the number follows is for sure gonna to determine if you get retreated
we control the number follows they have whether the politician or was yeah man of female
hole there are the job they do what's in the tree to have stack the
video link whatever menu is a billion things we control for glass the fixed effects that

Share this talk: 

Conference program

Charisma: Measurement and outcomes
John Antonakis, University of Lausanne
11 May 2017 · 11:04 a.m.