Embed code
Note: this content has been automatically generated.
you have to um talk to you know not hopefully stimulate further
discussion with the people um uh that were working full screen
um hum no 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 heard 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 rice were able to reliably
detect you would when i'm snooty by rating the faces of all
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 fashion appearance
um and that really great keep it 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
all all this problem and and plated written about a long time ago in the republican said
imagine the captain of the bow to store line stronger than any of the crew
is a little blind has a similar in for meeting hearing enters
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 about thought robin 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 are very idiosyncratic that depend on many on model courses for example how you look
um for example if they know that you've been successful so they 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 and dodge unless you depends on other variables
in the system of equations and may be omitted from the system up quite
so why isn't isn't 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 falwell
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
or 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 that 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 to manipulate
um 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 p. hey nice 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 a and b. 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 you are 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 shave and you say you know oh bomber is objectively charismatic
um but you know he's completely hated by people who don't share use 'em 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 really that um no what the stands for 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 cow 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 you just 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 because 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 k. from econometrics all that 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 the correlation
if it's antigen 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 correlation
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 and two hundred years ago it's also being found in
in um in different references uh in in ancient greek mythology the graces and in care as well 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 revel 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 them a 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 uh roberta weber 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 the blue uh
like 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 through the usual channels to hire temporary workers
what what we called for a mail sorting a task the what
is the don't know who 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
uh 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 kinda manager who briefly in 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 were briefed by nectar
but there was 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 brief 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 in 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 a little problems of all the lobe 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 hours to just play that in like two
hundred units used in three hours is what the base rate is so what we're gonna do is um
we 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 what 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 standard 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 and what our predictions are 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 production
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
the speech is had the same amount of words said the same thing at approximately the same time
so we have exactly the same the mind effects 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 you
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 the stick it 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 us on the water or
what does everybody with that's all
against us yeah exactly so you know these things make it memorable and define 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 create sink sleek makes a person look for the answer
saying things in three it's it's much more easy to remember three partners than a twenty seven populist
small memorable it more rhythmic 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 task in that we use more references
that that was driving there's also with exactly the same amount of more of the monsoon both speeches we hold back on
okay just to show you an example i'm gonna just for back um to um the the speech
made by bark a bomb uh a little part of it at the democratic national convention
so many 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 or or or or uh
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 we set 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 or the 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
he just acts if she's going badly what should 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 tactile aspirants an
call me in the morning so this is with us last saying come from so yes an anecdote which immediately triggers a visual
and what the republican stand for you does need to explain it explicitly everyone knows what this is gonna do what
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 headphones that
so that's where the metal begins with rhetorical question rhetorical question
rhetorical question on so on so on set 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 code 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 were lightly and correlate highly
with um me and and and the future car and and the benjamin to have
who developed the score this manual so we use what's called the
cup the statistic it's a way to quantify agreement between writers
so what once you 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 there is very speech would yeah it's a pretty good agreement
and we had pretty high kappa statistic what's important to show here is that non charismatic speech
had only sixty number 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 you'll 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 will will
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 the 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 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 time all the oh yeah
sure yeah oh because it will release was was now
this is on this list which ah it's a ah well okay for you you know
okay so the charismatic version of this
ah okay
well let's see ah over the uh oh yeah
and where there is that's for sure and from
the chewed her lip i grew 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
well well well well well oh yes or no
this is for real 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 go well that's yeah that's what 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
well well well one room
it was a raw raw oh or are you still for c. uh huh huh
you should ah ah style
or as 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 has okay the last
please do this yeah 'cause this one oh oh sure
mm or or or we will he walks out so we don't have any other interaction of
contamination between him and the group so it disappears is i gotta go now and
uh that is uh
you should yeah
so er works for it
or or or or or or or
or was it
how to roller group right
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 so everything was done as you say this was the font
the studio what he did we also folding doing it live with a 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 and they they converse to 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 but yeah 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 group 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 reached 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 um 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 letters uh 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 pushes
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 play is i will will either have lintel computer the computers are talking to each other
you're gonna see the same video which is gonna make the demand effect for you
to contribute money to public good so what does this mean in economics
we wanna capture whether 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 convert to 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 back
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 give a shit back
of the multiplication and the money okay so this is the dominant strategy
everyone is not so stupid 'cause we've windows domain 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 it straight away i think i'm not
a needed i'm not gonna get taken for right and they immediately defect okay so what
we're gonna do nice compared to standard probably 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 here 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 there's 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 of your the tragedy of the commons opposes a common grazing wrong
for 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 they can all
benefit however each farmer may have a selfish interest rate is uh how
cookouts grace as much as possible but if all the farmers do that the common good will break down the field will turn from a screen
cross 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 can 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 it 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 yeah it is the 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
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 for the video 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 exclude does 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 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 those mistakes and all the 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 to 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 at 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 indoctrinated
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
you did this and also predict the views independently of the human so this is what we're doing right now
um we replicate this whole saying true 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 the have whether the politician or was yeah man of female hold
the ah the job they do what's in the tree to have stacked the video
link whatever a menu is a billion things we control for glass the fixed effects that
are common to each person to see the marginal effect of putting one treat
uh in a in one treat a charismatic tactic normally hundred forty characters it's like two three sentences
but still you can put a metaphor in a rhetorical question um you can
still show you more conviction so this is another data set that we
have um i'm probably a bit more tricky because there's less context in
it but that would be really cool test with the neural networks
again you put a treat 'em a a charismatic tactic in a tree to increase retreats by about thirty two
sandwiches uh it's something which we believe is pretty consequential so now um we're gonna
we're right now um by setting up an experimental put a study where um
well i could maybe say is anyone onto the yeah so it's and the one that you okay well
anyway you want no but we setting up accounts read accounts where we're gonna start getting forest
and and then one account will be treating all the time charismatic he and in a separate account the same content
but not charismatic lee and then we get it set up another to cause we were gonna switch on
a daily basis and then was gonna take a real accounts of real people in intervene once in a while
slipping a charismatic treat uh to see that that increase the repeat rate so we're gonna does experimentally
we've set up a whole bunch of field experiments that we gonna study um how to do this
um um how to um um to study how to better train charisma in people so
we we can see its effect on outcomes um so raise many questions um
does it assessed et cetera et cetera so well these are
very interesting backpack fat for feed most interesting thing is
from a cat archival data can we get a computer to reliably do it because it is
error prone when humans do it it takes a lot of time gotta train them um so you know if we
can find a way to do it in the idea is that we develop something that we can also
i'm sure papal on and and have a an online platform so people can upload the
speech and then the computer would be we immediately return how charismatic it is
okay so this is now um with the ground that was starting to do it
so until we meet again this is my new slogan inference by the birds
oh yeah that's it thank you
so apparently this uh i should finish five minutes ago but so we've got ten minutes for culinary and
i'll be there for lunch as well so i'm happy to take any questions which you might have
so must uh got to compare s. and you know how you
and then gentlemen
so you know
or these are known in yeah yeah remote t. v.
like the speech recognition
how we
well actually we account for it fun enough by using the
comp model so we're watching the dependent variable as account
which isn't on the new models so that's the first thing i don't know if that's what you mean
the second thing is we don't we don't care about the audience effect we don't even look at them with only the model them
and and our i just don't even look at the videos because that would be highly biased by what
they see is going on in the audience clapping laughing whatever so we only had the transcript
and then you look at the transcript so we're looking at the basis of the communication which is in
the rhetorical structure now we do know that and you're right about that that what you say
and how it's delivered is actually just correlated in does have a can have an impact
on others and by contagion effect you know that you like and for all the nickel wow you know it you know that's gonna
making the bingo yell a lot you know and it it does but by contagion up but we don't care about that stuff
what we care about is the number of use and those number
of use theoretically should move the mall charismatic the speech it's
and the more sexy person wrote the most six of the tightly so you know we
we we control for these things weights being a classified and all that stuff
um so yeah i mean we don't have all these things and especially because we don't
manipulating we can control for that but i don't know if that answer the question
the way they are more it's for every
the north because it's gonna be highly by seeing humans were coding these things
okay now it's possible someone gave a great talk okay and everyone talked about and then and treated and all that stuff no
i'm not i don't measure that at all and it's it's likely that's gonna drive use i'm just measuring the basis that
the the the basis of the top which is this on this the syntax the
syntactic construct of the sentences and just isn't productive use which is crazy
controlling for the face and and all the other thing the fame of the person so we don't even care about that and
the fact that we predicted is crazy just yeah we could relate better if we did what you're saying h. t.
for up these things yeah true true
yeah yes yes it's incredible animal sex interfaces the move use you're gonna get
yes sure yeah
uh the gentleman here from him
uh_huh 'cause charismatic
so right
oh yes oh yes or no or
yeah there's a there's a good reason for that stuff on the extremes we have few
observations of the conference it was a higher it's not because it might backfire
yeah it's not that it's a it's goes like this it's just that on the extreme extreme extreme so i i mean i just put it would be
two standard deviations um to show and three send you the actions show what happens it expects yeah
well the question
and you know another question i think i could use a few more words about removable party but you you have focused yes yes
so i'm i'm so as i was saying about my marion should witness that we're talking early on is is working with that danielle on this
um and we actually we can work independently was with mari and
um to try to documented typology of nonverbal gestures which
he does may use to signal certain things okay like you know what i just did now we're you know
i know you can do it um you know what does that mean um so what we're trying to do
is try to get a typology of things that you just do that goes with what they say
um to see whether this helps in communicating the message and wife active
man i'm so in the speech that i have with that young
guy i actually have got eight uh of a four versions of
the speech i have the charismatic speech with charismatic nonverbal behaviour
non charismatic speech with charismatic verbal behaviour so you know you saying he's
exactly the same thing but is doing um and he's saying
exactly same thing charismatic the in non charismatic the but using either body language or not to to try to get it
the quantification of how much actually the nonverbal signalling max's irrespective of the speech and does it need
to go with the particular you know when i say i know you can do it
because very well with that but you know if if i say something else like you know the
pool networks are really cool okay i mean maybe does go with that a little bit
um you are saying that something someone evil to certain gestures they're not
because being given that uh rica's beaches so performance to the politicians find there's
no recorded we think of the right of trouble or possible yeah trough
just an example i think that's great you you do good you could imagine having these
vocabulary of gestures a very specific busy oh yeah and and i'm gonna behave based charisma
measuring method that you can what i'm i don't know it doesn't but i mean it does that all the time but that's a bit annoying the way he does it uh
and it's a bit repetitive and when you listen to me it's kind of i feel very
uncomfortable after while because it keeps on repeating very similar gestures and i keep something there
so he i think that's an example if we were to measure him in some kind of way with your
knowledge infected do little but that's cool but you did too much it's probably gonna not uh not well
and and one thing just to mention daniel for the us elections we went back to
nineteen sixteen and got the transcripts of the to pretend this to the white house
democrat republican and and the transcript we we couldn't use the transcript for all the elections because in the nineteen sixty we
had no this you there's no voice recording there's no um
video recording i started actually in the kennedy d.
nixon election line him sixty ones and i guess you somewhere there um
so so to hold everything constant we only use the verbal
and still with available when economic signals all week so we interact exxon take
the economic production with the charisma when economic production signal is is
you schooling the election fifty fifty this when charisma really matches so like we we
we we uh so even if we don't even look at the nonverbal
we still do a very good job predicting why so we think we not
sure but um that is research suggesting that when you communicating symbolic ways
that triggers something in your new rule real you you brain and and and kind of comes
out in the body so if i start telling a story very visual story you know
and the little girl in the beach and sounds coming up and threw it you know
it's much more amenable to using body gestures then if i say something very sterile
and then in the lead we we actually train people to use charisma
what we did notices separate people looked at the nonverbal and available
the more retarded the rich the speech was in in the text objectively coded the
mall if they use gestures the correlation was point five which is pretty high
if i correct formation mentor in the criterion and and and and in the two variables
to if we corrected correlation point five divided by say the square root of
for daytime spun eighty which is reliability minute correlations point six something it's even right now
so it's really funny that the text is a good proxy for the convertible
crazy i mean uh
to trends then why do we have another question
or it's good you guys make a good tech team
um so so but let's say if you take one mosque away must yeah but i think that we i think so
well it is but that's not that's not it's nothing do with charisma
but like she's like a yeah it's not so sure that sure what's so he's not a smooth
talker let's separate two things so um in my study we actually measured that maybe just a
yeah yeah i know he's charismatic in the way i'm injectors but they just didn't show your answer your questions came in it
so this was the um basic research that we did way we um showed it charisma can be taught
um and we did a field experiment with risk on and then we did
a lab experiment um with my uh u. m. b. a. students
um so this is just the prototypical guy so what i wanna show use this yeah this is the important table
use me
see yeah communication skills we had to separate code is code for that
was the speech well structured hi my name is john did i'm gonna talk about this bill
was the person speaking clearly hi my name is john not yeah i'm i'm on whatever
how many times that used non lexical utterances like on um um um um we
counted all the stuff we count how loudly speaking how fast it was speaking
so we control for communication skills and you see when we put that in and it varied between
the for speech they gave in the second speech it does actually nothing's completely dominated by christmas
and a lot than the the nice case like to use is a guy called up to allow i don't know
if anyone in the audience knows of a book oh yeah so book i was a present of india
um uh he was a physicist uh use the guy who put up into into space with is that we three nineteen eighty four
the speech of colour the guys that fixed camel accent ever
he speaks very bad grammatically incorrect status it like crazy
back to use is excellent storytelling and metaphors and i mean i can show you if you want is just one minute
sure sure you have a minute to show that's right and then we could just finish with this to show you that it's not the
communication skills that matt is is really the the the visuals images
show you have very quickly so um uh to allow um
mm or a or a or a line
yeah well or yeah
hey i or h. l. a.
uh_huh he or or or or or
wow well i oh or
or or or or
oh yeah he are now he uh well
and it's in uh the p. l. o. e. yeah
yeah well he uh or or yeah
uh_huh well
oh of course i was who he
or i or or uh_huh or
well well well i uh i i i uh our huh uh_huh
uh_huh uh huh huh i i ah ah ah yeah
oh or or or or
oh yeah i mean i know how are
um oh uh oh yeah well i yeah
uh_huh ah ah yeah i uh yeah yeah
oh or or or uh huh oh yeah ah well he
uh_huh yeah oh yeah or maybe go or mm kay
huh huh huh huh
oh well uh huh well i i i i i. e.
ah so it's just you know so typically we had many cases of people were really
bad communicates per se but you put a metaphor you put a story animated
people completely all that and they it it doesn't matter in fact sometimes if a person is choose who they actually are
does look authentic enough and i even come across as being manipulative but you know these these kind of things i mean now you know them
we don't really before i made this very salient you it's not something that we actually
pay attention to 'em unless someone over does it in attract too much attention anyway
maybe which and this country discussion over lunch for those of you wanting
should be ordered

Share this talk: 

Conference program

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

Recommended talks

Unknown author
3 Sept. 2012 · 10:30 a.m.
Multilingual speech recognition
Dr. David Imseng, Idiap Research Institute
17 Oct. 2013 · 10:57 a.m.