inferring the mental state of...
TRANSCRIPT
1 23
Social Network Analysis and Mining ISSN 1869-5450Volume 3Number 3 Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. (2013) 3:565-595DOI 10.1007/s13278-013-0102-3
Inferring the mental state of influencers
D. B. Skillicorn & C. Leuprecht
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag Wien. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Inferring the mental state of influencers
D. B. Skillicorn • C. Leuprecht
Received: 28 November 2012 / Revised: 5 February 2013 / Accepted: 9 February 2013 / Published online: 28 February 2013
� Springer-Verlag Wien 2013
Abstract Most analysis of influence examines the
mechanisms used, and their effectiveness on the intended
audience. Here, we consider influence from another per-
spective: what does the choice in the language of influ-
encers signal about their internal mental state, strategies
and assessments of success? We do this by examining the
language used by the US presidential candidates in the
high-stakes attempt to get elected. Such candidates try to
influence potential voters, but must also pay attention to
the parallel attempts by their competitors to influence the
same pool. We examine channels: nouns, as surrogates
for content; adjectives, verbs, and adverbs as modifiers of
discussion of the same pool of ideas from different per-
spectives, positive and negative language; and persona
deception, the use of language to present oneself as better
than the reality. Several intuitive and expected hypotheses
are supported, but some unexpected and surprising struc-
tures also emerge. The results provide insights into related
influence scenarios where open-source data are available,
e.g., marketing, business reporting, and intelligence.
1 Introduction
We address the problem of language-based influence in
settings where there are a set of influencers and an audience
to be influenced. Some examples of such settings are
shown in Table 1. However, unlike most work on
influence, we do not consider the process from the per-
spective of the audience (how well does it work?) nor from
the perspective of the influencer (how can I do it better?).
Rather we consider what the choices, conscious and sub-
conscious, of the influencer reveal about him/her/them and,
to some extent, how this changes over time. In other words,
we use language to shed light on the influencer’s mind,
rather than as a channel for influence itself. Since choice in
language is partly or completely subconscious, we use
language patterns to access aspects of influencers and their
organizations that may not be obvious—even to
themselves.
Such influencing language cannot realistically be mod-
elled as a one-way channel from influencer to influenced.
An influencer is necessarily concerned with the audience’s
reaction, whether in real-time in a speech, or at longer time
scales using polling or sentiment analysis. Feedback is an
essential part of the process and this should be visible in
longitudinal change.
The main constraints on an influencer are of four dif-
ferent kinds:
1. Intrinsic capabilities, such as linguistic ability and
personality;
2. Goals, the purpose to be served by the communication;
3. Responses, judgements about the effectiveness on the
target audience; and
4. The language of competitors within the same sphere of
influence.
The first three drivers are not very different from those
posited by systemic functional linguists for all communi-
cation (Matthiessen and Halliday 1997; Whitelaw and
Argamon 2004).
We examine the language of influence via eight differ-
ent ‘‘channels’’:
D. B. Skillicorn (&)
School of Computing, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
C. Leuprecht
School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
123
Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. (2013) 3:565–595
DOI 10.1007/s13278-013-0102-3
Author's personal copy
1. Nouns, which measure how each influencer chooses
among particular topics to appeal to audience interests
or concerns, and to gain an edge over competitors.
2. Adjective usage, which measures how each influencer
modifies the chosen nouns (if at all). This might also
be an aspect of sentiment since some adjectives have
emotional or polarity associations.
3. Verb usage, which is almost unexplored but which
might measure proactivity versus reactivity, and views
of time encoded in verb tenses.
4. Adverb usage, which measures how each influencer
modifies the chosen verbs and might reveal aspects of
sentiment, e.g., in what way actions are to be taken.
5. Positivity, which measures the attempt to appeal
emotionally to an audience in an uplifting way.
6. Negativity, which measures both openness by the
influencer, and attempts to denigrate competitors.
7. Persona deception, which measures the attempt by
individuals or organizations to appear better, wiser,
smarter, and/or more experienced or more qualified
than they really are.
8. Integrative complexity, which measures the structural
complexity of the way in which ideas are being
communicated. The integrative complexity construct
can be further subdivided into a dialectical aspect, the
extent of awareness that ideas can be understood from
more than one perspective, and an elaborative aspect
that ideas contain internal subtleties that may need to
be developed (Conway et al. 2008).
These channels play different roles in different settings.
For example, businesses use a form of persona deception to
build up their brands, but are rarely negative, even about
competitors. Politicians use persona deception to present
themselves as electable to the position for which they are
campaigning, but are quite willing to be negative about
their competitors. Positivity usually has a self-focus while
negativity almost always has an other-focus.
We assume that what might be called ‘professional’
influencers are well resourced and highly motivated, and
have access to analysis that allows them to assess the extent
to which they are being effective. We also assume that they
have clarity about the goals of their influence that is how
effectiveness is to be defined.
Influencers will be strategic and deliberate about their
use of channels of influence. We are, therefore, particularly
interested when the process of influencing does not seem to
agree with the apparent goals, resources and mechanisms,
and seek explanations for the discrepancies. It might be
that they represent simple failures to carry out a plan, even
if the plan was well-conceived and resourced. But it might
also be that such plans have inherent limits, and that the
humans involved may be unable to act as intended.
We narrow our scope to the contenders for the US
presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 as exemplars of
highly motivated and resourced influencers. Their goals are
comparable to advertisers and insurgents in terms of their
need for effective influence.
The role of influence has been studied extensively in the
context of elections. The functional theory of campaign
discourse (Benoit 2007; Hacker et al. 2000) draws dis-
tinctions between candidates’ policy positions and the
personas that they try to present to audiences, on which we
will draw. An election campaign pursues a strategy to get
their candidate elected. Once this strategy has been
devised, the candidate pursues it; in one sense, the candi-
date represents it. This consistent goal should be obser-
vable in the language patterns used in campaign speeches.
We, therefore, begin with the broad hypothesis:
H1: Candidates will use language consistently over time
in pursuit of their chosen strategy. Of course, there may be
times when the overall strategy is reconfigured. Such times
should be detectable as discontinuities in language patterns.
On a smaller scale, candidates may feel obligated to react
to issues raised by other campaigns, so we expect that there
will be cross-pollination of language patterns between
campaigns.
On the one hand, campaigns also need to differentiate
their candidate from the competing candidates, so we
expect each campaign to settle on particular issues and
perspectives; and possibly also on particular styles of
talking about them. On the other hand, campaigns are also
aware of the issues that matter to voters, and of the need to
appear responsive to them. They must, therefore, balance
the need for differentiation against the need to seem rele-
vant by talking about issues relevant to voters. Our second
broad hypothesis then is:
H2: Candidates will use language that differentiates
them from other candidates but with considerable overlap.
The overlaps will be largest for more-neutral, content-fil-
led, language and less for language relevant to hows and
whys of opinions, policies and actions. In other words,
candidates are forced to talk about the same issues, but
have the opportunity to differentiate themselves on the
basis of process or motivation.
These broad hypotheses suggest that hypotheses about
particular aspects of the way language are used. Benoit has
suggested that candidates need to make their messages
distinctive, but in ways that voters approve (Benoit 2007).
Table 1 Influence settings
Influencer Audience Setting
Businesses Consumers Advertising
Terrorists Sympathizers Recruitment
Politicians Voters Campaigns
566 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
H3: Nouns differ across candidates, but not greatly
because of the need to discuss issues of interest to all or
most voters.
H4: Verbs, adverbs, and adjectives will show greater
differentiation because they allow candidates to describe
different approaches and styles to common issues.
One part of presenting a candidate or product in the best
possible light is to associate positive feelings with him or
her or it. This suggests:
H5: Candidates will use high levels of positive lan-
guage, both about the future and about themselves.
At the same time, candidates improve their own candi-
dacy by being negative about other candidates. Attacks
reduce the desirability of opponents (Benoit 2004). It is
also widely believed that negative language increases
impact by increasing attention to informational content (but
see Stevens (Stevens 2012) for a discussion of the issues
and a dissenting view). This suggests:
H6: Candidates will use high levels of negative lan-
guage, perhaps directed at their competitors, but perhaps
also painting existing problems as particularly intractable
to position themselves as problem solvers.
Every candidate presents themselves as the best person
for the elected position and, therefore, is motivated to come
across as better than they might actually be. This behavior
is a form of deception: not the factual deception of making
objectively untrue statements, but the persona deception of
putting things in the best possible light (and perhaps by
strategic omission) (Keila and Skillicorn 2005). The same
phenomenon is visible in advertising, where products are
presented in ways that associate them with attributes that
have little to do with the function of the products. This
suggests the hypothesis:
H7: Candidates should show high levels of persona
deception as they try to convince voters that they are well
qualified, and better qualified than their competitors.
Another dimension of campaign language is the level of
sophistication with which each candidate presents and
discusses the issues. This reflects both the candidate’s
ability but also his or her view of the sophistication of the
audience. It has been suggested that voters want simple
cues to assess candidates with minimal effort (Hibbing and
Theiss-Morse 2002). To examine this effect, we use the
integrative complexity construct for which an automated
scoring tool has recently been developed (Conway et al. in
press). A hypothesis for such a construct is not obvious, but
there is some evidence that integrative complexity scores
by presidents reduce as elections draw near. There is also
some evidence that changing integrative complexity is
effective for a candidate when it violates voters’ expecta-
tions, such as when a candidate viewed as naive is able to
deploy high levels of integrative complexity or vice versa
(Conway et al. in press). This suggests:
H8: Candidates reduce their integrative complexity to
signal the crucial binary, us against them, choice and to
make complex issues simpler for voters to understand.
Our overall prediction, therefore, is that candidates who
do better on all of these dimensions are more likely to be
successful.
The contribution of this paper is the exploration of the
mental states of candidates in a highly competitive setting,
with the goal of understanding consistency and variation.
Since consistency seems the most plausible goal, variation
also needs to be explained. We also make some tentative
assessments of which patterns of language use are associ-
ated with success in this domain.
The methodology is also of some interest since it is
lightweight and generalizes to other domains in which
influence is crucial. This approach can be applied to other
open-source influence scenarios where the language used is
available for analysis, including marketing and some kinds
of advertising, business reporting, and intelligence analy-
sis. However, the approach focuses not on the population
segment intended to be influenced, but instead on what can
be learned about the source organizations and individuals.
2 Channels of influence
We consider political speeches, and extract from them
patterns of language use on eight different channels. For
channels based on the rates of occurrence of parts of
speech, we extract document content using the QTagger
(Creasor and Skillicorn 2012), a part-of-speech aware
tagger that uses Lingpipe (Alias-i 2008) as a front-end.
This enables all words tagged as nouns, as adjectives, as
verbs, and as adverbs to be extracted from a set of docu-
ments and their frequencies counted. Positivity and nega-
tivity are computed based on lists of positive and negative
words created by Loughran and McDonald (2011) for
business settings. Since political speeches often have a
significant economic component, these lists were judged to
be more appropriate than the more-general lists used in
sentiment analysis and targeted at consumer products,
books, and movies.
Persona deception—the attempt to appear better than one
is—is a form of deception and is captured well by Penne-
baker’s deception model (Newman et al. 2003). This model
characterizes deception as causing changes in the frequen-
cies of 86 words, in four categories. In deceptive text:
1. First-person singular pronouns (‘‘I’’, ‘‘me’’, ‘‘myself’’)
decrease in frequency;
2. Exclusive words, words that single an increase
in content complexity (‘‘but’’, ‘‘or’’) decrease in
frequency;
Inferring the mental state of influencers 567
123
Author's personal copy
3. Negative-emotion words (‘‘afraid’’, ‘‘disappointed’’)
increase in frequency;
4. Action verbs (‘‘go’’, ‘‘lead’’) increase in frequency.
Since the meaning of ‘‘increase’’ and ‘‘decrease’’ depends
on some baseline, this model can only be used to rank a
group of cognate documents by their relative deceptive-
ness, not label an individual document as deceptive or not.
For example, in business writing, first-person singular
pronouns are rare, so a mixture of such documents and, say,
blogs would produce non-comparable deceptiveness
scores.
Integrative complexity is a measure of structural intel-
lectual complexity in discussion, argument, or evaluation
(Suedfeld et al. 1992). It is content-neutral and tries to
evaluate the cognitive complexity embodied in a docu-
ment. It has been suggested that integrative complexity
contains two subconstructs, one which evaluates the extent
of awareness of multiple perspectives on any issues (dif-
ferentiation) and the other which evaluates the awareness
of connections between such perspectives (integration).
3 Experimental framework
The campaign speeches of US presidential candidates in
the period from January 2008 to the 2008 election (McC-
ain, Clinton, Obama) and from January 2012 to the 2012
election (Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum, Obama) were
collected. These speeches were, of course, often the
product of many authors, so the insight they provide is
insight into the thinking of each campaign rather than each
candidate. The individuals who delivered each speech do
make alterations on-the-fly and the delivery of speeches
obviously based on the same script differs substantially
from one day to the next—so some insight into individual
speakers is possible. Obama was the only candidate to
participate in both election cycles, but there was consid-
erable overlap of his speechwriters for the two campaigns,
so we do not expect differences between the two cam-
paigns because of changes in personnel.
The complete set of speeches and either a specific word
list or selected parts-of-speech tags were given to the
QTagger which extracted a document-word matrix in
which each entry represents the frequency of (the tagged
version of) each word in each speech. In other words, given
a set of candidate words, say nouns, the result of the
extraction is a matrix with a row corresponding to each
speech, a column corresponding to each word, and whose
entries are the frequencies of each word in each speech.
Each row of the matrix is normalized by dividing by the
row sum to reduce the effect of the difference in lengths
of speeches. Each column of the matrix is normalized to
z scores (subtracting the column mean from each column
entry and dividing by the column standard deviation). As a
result, positive values in the normalized matrix represent
greater than typical rates of use, negative values represent
lower than typical rates of use, while absence and median
use are conflated to small-magnitude entries. This effect is
problematic, although justifiable, and there is no practical
workaround.
In the deception model, the sign of those columns cor-
responding to words where a decrease in frequency is the
signal of an increase in deception are reversed so that
positive entries always correspond to increasing deception.
If the data matrix has n rows (1 per document) and
m columns (1 per word), then each document can be con-
sidered as a point in m-dimensional space. Understanding
of the relationships among documents can be increased by,
e.g., clustering in this space to find groups of similar
documents. (Symmetrically, each word can be considered
as a point in n-dimensional space and the relationships
among words explored by clustering as well.)
However, m is typically large and there are advantages
in projecting the m-dimensional space into one of lower
dimension. Doing so removes some of the noise associated
with polysemy and also makes it possible to visualize the
relationships among the documents.
We do this using singular value decomposition (SVD)
(Golub and van Loan 1996). If A is the data matrix
(n 9 m), then the SVD is given by:
A ¼ USV 0;
where U is n 9 m, S is a diagonal matrix whose entries,
called singular values, are non-increasing, V is m 9 m, and
the superscript dash indicates transposition. Both U and
V are orthogonal matrices.
One interpretation of SVD is that it rotates the space so
that the greatest variation is aligned with the axis given by
the first row of V0, the second-greatest uncorrelated varia-
tion with the second row of V0, and so on. The rows of
U are then the coordinates of each document in this
transformed space.
Because of the ordering of the axes, the decomposition
can be truncated after some k dimensions (a form of pro-
jection) so that
A � UkSkV 0k;
where U is n 9 k, S is k 9 k and V0 is k 9 m. The mag-
nitudes of the singular values indicate how much variation
is captured in each new direction and so estimates how
much is being ignored by truncation at any choice of k. We
use k = 2 and so represent the documents, and words, in a
two-dimensional space. In such a space, different patterns
of word use are reflected by positions in different directions
from the origin—similarity derives from dot products of
568 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
the vectors associated with each point. Distance from the
origin is a measure of the intensity of the difference of the
underlying document or word.
If the data consist of a single underlying factor then the
use of SVD detects this as an almost-linear structure in the
low-dimensional space. Because of the inherent symmetry
between documents and words—if A = USV0 then
A0 = VSU0—points corresponding to both documents and
words can be plotted in the same space (appropriately
scaled). In such a plot, documents can be considered as
being drawn towards the points corresponding to words
that occur within them with higher frequency and, sym-
metrically, words as being drawn to documents in which
they feature. This aids in understanding the relationships
between documents and words. All of the figures are ori-
ented so that the positions of points corresponding to
documents and points corresponding to words are aligned.
4 Results
Throughout this section, the results are coded as shown in
Table 2. In all SVD figures, distance from the origin cor-
responds to increased significance, and directions indicate
different kinds of variation. The axes associated with these
figures are linear combinations of the underlying data, but
this is not usually helpful to understand the resulting
semantic space. Rather the axes should be understood as
meaningful directions in which data vary, but the precise
relationship of this variation to that of the original data is
not helpful.
The number of markers used in each experiment is given
in Table 3. Each marker represents a particular word with a
particular tag; hence, although the deception model uses 86
words, 128 tagged words were counted. Clearly spurious
words were removed, but the quality of parsing did not
make it possible to determine every spurious possibility
(e.g., ‘‘mine’’ as a noun instead of a pronoun). For all
models, any word that occurred in more than one document
was counted.
4.1 Nouns
Two campaigns involving hundreds of speeches obviously
cover a large number of topics and so we expect that the
usage of nouns will be diffuse. However, Fig. 1 shows that
the space of nouns forms a rough triangle. At its left-hand
edge are words associated with the process of campaign-
ing: ‘‘president’’, ‘‘choice’’, ‘‘government’’, ‘‘college’’ and
‘‘class’’. At the top right are words associated with general
issues: ‘‘nation’’, ‘‘life’’, ‘‘state’’, ‘‘country’’. At the bottom
right are words associated with economic issues: ‘‘oil’’,
‘‘businesses’’, ‘‘budget’’, and ‘‘taxes’’.
The variation among speeches mirrors this variation in
the usage of nouns, as shown in Fig. 2 (See Table 2 for the
color coding used throughout these figures). The left-hand
end is primarily associated with Obama’s campaign in
2012, an emphasis on election stops on college campuses
and enthusiastic audience response. The top-right hand
corner represents the focus of content in the 2012 election
for all of the other candidates, and for Clinton in 2008. The
bottom right corner is entirely occupied by speeches from
the 2008 campaign (McCain vs. Obama), where the
economy suddenly became the main focus late in the
campaign (after Clinton had dropped out). It is striking how
little these topics were mentioned in the 2012 campaign.
Figure 3 shows the same figure but with the labelling
simplified to election cycle and party. This shows two
things: first, Obama’s content changed strongly between
the two election cycles (blue stars vs. blue circles). Second,
the Republicans and Democrats talk about different issues
(at least in terms of the nouns they use) with blue domi-
nating slightly in the left of the figure and red in the right.
Figure 4 shows changes in the use of nouns over time
for each candidate, with each placed in the common
semantic space provided in Fig. 1. It thus allows us to see
not only how much variability each candidate exhibits over
time, but also which part(s) of the content space they cover
in their speeches. The scale of the figures is the same so
that direct comparisons can be made.
Notice first that almost every candidate spends their time
along the top edge of the triangle. The exceptions are
Table 2 Symbol coding for results
Politician Symbol
Clinton Magenta star
McCain Red star
Obama (2008) Blue star
Gingrich Green circle
Paul Yellow circle
Romney Red circle
Santorum Black circle
Obama (2012) Blue circle
Table 3 Number of tagged words used for each model
Model Number of markers
Nouns 10,960
Adjectives 2,910
Verbs 5,908
Adverbs 792
Positive 325
Negative 1,205
Deception 128
Inferring the mental state of influencers 569
123
Author's personal copy
McCain and Obama in 2008, where the topics were more
wide-ranging. It is not surprising that candidates tend to
talk about similar topics, since remarks by one may attract
rebuttal by another. However, something more general is at
work, for there is considerable agreement between, say,
Clinton in 2008 and Romney in 2012, showing that there
are common topics of concern over longer periods of time.
Figure 5 shows variation in the use of nouns with time
for all candidates (the y axis of this figure represents the
x axis positions in Fig. 2 arranged by candidate and then by
−0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
money
crisis
economy
wall
taxes
businesses
dollars
congress
country
street
plan
business
leaders obama
people
jobs
washington
history
week senator
america
help
homes
thing
opportunity
tax
president
times
credit
months
home doors
campaign
opponent
fact administration
millions $
republicans
values
states growth budget
program democrats
rules
cuts
deficit kind
friends
world
leadership
support
politics
change government
market
office
students
stake
fight investments interests
house
moment
side
regulations vote
days
course
party vision clinton
class debt
bill
path
workers
night earth
reason
romney
time
rights
god
college
top
hope man
trade
issue
choice members medicare
number
education schools
promise iowa
child
place things
school freedom folks
percent the
governor
chance
policies
laughter
audience ohio thousands
challenges
audience
colleges
community
member
lot
dream
difference
state bill
century
progress
nation
applause
bush
decade china
generation
matter
policy
problems
idea
afghanistan
teachers
ideas
romney
america’s
laughter prosperity term
election
service
reform
future
programs
work
success sense
auto
industry
children
home
law
parents
john part
way
kids
life
troops responsibility
americans
iraq
day
family
men
today
veterans
job
mccain
end
year
war security
women
years
lives
problem
$
decades
science
cars wind power
system
families
companies gas
insurance cost
technology
oil
energy costs health
care
v1
v2
Fig. 1 Variation among nouns.
The axes of such figures
represent linear combinations of
all of the speeches (resp.
words), and so are not directly
interpretable—but they
represent directions in which
there is greatest variation in
each dataset, and so have an
intrinsic meaning
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
u1
u2
Fig. 2 Variation among
speeches based on noun usage
570 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
time). This provides deeper insight into short-term chan-
ges. Both McCain in 2008 and Obama in 2012 show
considerable flattening towards the end of the respective
campaigns, with lower variation from speech to speech.
Presumably this reflects a well-honed stump speech which
becomes somewhat automatic. Obama also shows a trend
over the entire campaign towards the cluster of nouns that
appear at the left-hand end of Fig. 1.
4.2 Adjectives
Nouns seem to provide little opportunity for differentiation,
but adjectives can potentially create such an opportunity;
they create the possibility of differentiated tones about the
same issues by, e.g., how positive or negative they are
(which we will also explore in more detail).
The range of use of adjectives is shown in Fig. 6. It
exhibits a triangular structure that appears to match that of
nouns, albeit more weakly. The words at the bottom right
are adjectives that naturally associate with the economic
content of the nouns in the corresponding area. The words
at the top right are adjectives that associate with the
national issues of the nouns in the corresponding area,
making sharp distinctions between those aspects that are
going well (‘‘great’’) and those that are not (‘‘hard’’).
The words at the left of the figure are adjectives that dif-
ferentiate different groups: ‘‘international’’, ‘‘homegrown’’,
‘‘black’’, ‘‘universal’’, ‘‘african’’, ‘‘hispanic’’, ‘‘rural’’, ‘‘old’’.
As Fig. 7 shows (and Fig. 8 even more clearly), the
separation is primarily between Democrats who use
adjectives from the left of the spectrum and Republicans
who use adjectives from the right. Both parties are drawn
to the positive adjectives on the upper right as well. It is
also noteworthy that Romney exhibits a wider range of
adjective use than any other candidate.
Figure 9 shows the variation in adjective use with time,
and shows the overall similarities, with only the slight
leftward or rightward bias between parties.
4.3 Verbs
Verbs have received little attention, and yet we might
expect them to be quite revealing of thinking, intent, and
action. Figure 10 shows the variation among verbs. The
extremal, and so most significant, verbs are all short, many
of them auxiliaries. There are few verbs in the past tense,
although those that appear tend to be in the upper right-
hand area.
Figure 11 shows that there are substantial differences
in how verbs are used. Obama’s 2012 campaign occupies
a space that is almost completely separate from that of
other candidates, including his own in 2008. The spee-
ches from the 2008 campaign are almost entirely along
the lower edge; the Republican speeches from 2012
are almost entirely in the upper right-hand direction
(Fig. 12).
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
u1
u2
Fig. 3 Variation among
speeches based on noun usage
for party and cycle (blue
Democrats, red Republicans;
asterisks 2008, circle 2012)
(color figure online)
Inferring the mental state of influencers 571
123
Author's personal copy
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
3
9
23
1 15 5
30
2
24
29 10
13
27 26 28
8
17
12
18
31 20
14 22 7
11 25 16
4 21 19
6
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
19 53
56
57 50
21
47
72
55 37 38
3
18
6
1 28
15 35
5
43
17
62
75
23
65
64
61
42
71 2
12
40 69
68
60 73 74
9
66
67 33
58 52
49
8
70
48
59
63
10
20
29 36
13
54
4 30
27
26 41
24
51
34
11 45
46
39 32
25
22
14
44
31
7
16
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
38
31
28
81
22
102 78
104
6 72
14
37
26
41
107
46
50 5 16
63
57
62
47
51
33
71
48
75
4
94
21
1
3
80
27
52
68
56
55
54
69
66
96 74 12
9
32 15 43
64
60
11 24 7
20
34 39
58 30
85 89 82 84 88
95
77
61
45
53
36
65
86 91
83
25
10 2
73
79
90
23 29
100 105
13
97
8
67 87
92 98 93
19
108
99
49
42 103 109
113
70
106
101
35
111
40
110 76
18
112
59
17 44
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2 1 4
3 5
6
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
4
3 5 1 2
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
17
4 14
9
6
18
13
1 3
2
7
8
16
15
12 19
5 10 11
20
21 22
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
3 4
6 5
1 7 9
8
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
49 26
18
41
7 15
23
14 54
72 8
65
60 32 48
5 56 21
85
132
3
688272
134
12 126
152
90 131 128
129 94 130
117 91 136 133
86
20
84 71
6
83
62
118 17
87 116 137
22
63
36
119
33 25
107
29
106
135 64 121 140 120 61 115 108
59
92 146 150 88 93 112 19
66 101 30 89 124 125 142 34
13 102 143 79 139
46
81
151 16 52 38 73 37 75 76
82
145 69 9
138
111 1 78 141
148 123 113 74
4 144 95 70 67 147 2 31
35
55 10 80 96 77
24
97 103 110 104
51
45 39 58
109 99
127 50
42 100 44 98 149
114
40 11 53 105 43 57
122
47
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(g) (h)
Fig. 4 Temporal patterns in the
use of nouns
572 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
The temporal structure of the use of verbs is some-
what different from that of nouns and adjectives: a
tendency for more looped patterns, and some exam-
ples of large anomalies in verb use for a single speech
(Fig. 13).
Figure 14 shows the changes in verb use with time.
Again McCain in 2008 and Obama in 2012 show a flat-
tening in verb choices towards the end of the campaign.
Obama’s verb use has a similar trajectory in both cam-
paigns; so does McCain’s but in the opposite direction.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450−0.2
−0.15
−0.1
−0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15Fig. 5 Time sequence for
variability in noun use over all
candidates. 1–32 Clinton,
33–108 McCain, 109–222
Obama 2008, 223–229
Gingrich, 230–382 Obama
2012, 383–388 Paul, 389–411
Romney, 412–421 Santorum,
color coding as before (color
figure online)
−0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2−2.5
−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
young
solar
new
own
good
clean renewable natural possible serious
old
higher
local
full
white
true worst
environmental efficient
willing
real
green stronger
rich future elderly
easy largest
private
sick major
tough civil confident asian
strongest free such recent
fuel−efficient greater nuclear brave decent global
wrong
certain high rural popular smart social
tougher black proud
safer
terrible average
red extraordinary
federal
whole
wealthy
successful human dark
expensive necessary worse dependent
little
east nation−building common democratic fine massive quick short
cynical secure
international native supreme
south presidential grateful
worth beautiful straight
enormous bankrupt dangerous familiar cold
huge rewarding homegrown
entire
affordable extra poor productive likely
golden dead essential
typical amazing
final
low
public hispanic top
competitive
difficult
particular
honest
open equal individual immediate
ordinary gingrich comprehensive conservative central
bottom−up
fair
negative
effective
close
independent direct reckless
universal african rid political biggest
prosperous incredible
happy general
north foreign
moral
sure
simple
military
available responsible critical hard
bipartisan
national
ready fundamental al strong
safe clear large
outstanding lower fiscal republican
wonderful
perfect
able
vital medical additional powerful
basic
bad bigger
right
early
wealthiest tragic
corporate
big
personal
long
special main
highest
best
greatest
better different
current
important
financial
middle
small
economic
great
american
v1
v2
Fig. 6 Variation among
adjectives
Inferring the mental state of influencers 573
123
Author's personal copy
4.4 Adverbs
Adverbs provide another channel for differentiation
because they make it possible to talk about the same issues
as other candidates, and even the same actions, but to
distinguish oneself by a different style.
Figure 15 shows the variation in the use of adverbs. The
right-hand end of the dense triangular cluster contains
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
u1
u2
Fig. 7 Variation among
speeches based on adjective
usage
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
u1
u2
Fig. 8 Variation among
speeches based on adjective
usage by party and cycle
574 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
(a) (b)
(d)(c)
(e)
(g) (h)
(f)
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
1 3 26
15 9
29
2
27 13 23
12
5 24
30
17
28 10 31 14
20
7 8
11 22
4 25 21
6
18 16 19
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
19
50
53
57
21
55
72
37
47
56
3
5
38
1 6
36
27
28
40 15
18
75
17
12
2 35
33
43
71
64
65
62
42
66 74 73
41
13
54 23
61 26
9
58 68
49 29 60 30
11 44
52 67
48
59
70 69
4
8
32 14
10
39
20 45
22 24 25 63 46
51
34 7 31
16
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
104
38 78
41
81
6 5
16
37
102 46
4
14
22 31
72
107 28
21
48
94 33
1
75
80
69 71
96 54
56
12
63
47
66
9
50 64
26
62
68
27
57 3
34
74
51 2 24 7
20 11
15
77 60
39 53 89
55 58
30
82 85
52 43
100 8 105
95
83
79
67 106 84
97
32
61 23
25
88
92
10 98 99 93 108
36
109
49 73 29
65
103 45
86
19
101 113 17
91
111 110
35
59
40 42 70
76
18 87 44
90
112
13
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
2
4
3 5
6
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
3 5
4 1
2
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
14 9
4
7
6 17 18
13
1 19 15
12
3 5
16
2
8
11
10
20
21 22
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
4
3 5
6 7
1
9
8
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
49
7
54
41
23
26 72
14
5
15
18
32
8
65 48
21
56
3 6082 72
85
129
130
132 64 90 62
12
133
126
63 134 33
71 68
152
84
83
91
17
59 20
128
66
19
140
6
136
131 94 117 61
36
93
38 46
137
86 75
37 107
73
69 16 81
108 145 125
116 142 150 121 82
80 135 143
89
151
52 67 70
146
22
139 115
45 113 74 92 58 87
112 118 119 144 106 29
102 138
35
39 13
111
51 57
141
123 50
148
77
9 101 4
79
1
55 34
30
25
124
88 78 24
147
42 76
120
53
2 43 104 10
44 31
149
97 40
109
95 11 96
99
110
105
103 100
98 122 127
114
47
Fig. 9 Temporal variation
based on adjectives
Inferring the mental state of influencers 575
123
Author's personal copy
−0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
give let
go
make
keep pay
need
said
cut
ask
want
got
create
united
get
come running
going
spend
happen
afford
asking
elected
work
fight
say
help
cut
know
take finish
turn
says
love
choose
wants
are
getting
fighting
raising
win
trying cuts vote
end
tell
talk
spending
believe
coming
become act lead
bring
heard breaks
build
calls
invest
raise reduce
see
hire
look
grow
giving
failed
put change
rebuild
creating hold
moving bless
try
lose
protect
like
promised
called
move
rebuilding
needs
rising
provide
remind
save
having
hear
let’s
start
strengthen
making
growing buy
makes
struggling
takes decide restore
stop
care
goes lost
’
building passed
helping
cutting
face
ensure
eliminate paying begin
doing
happens putting
solve
stand compete
come ve
stay send
means
pass gets
investing
went
find
offer gone run
got
hope
aren’t
ending
am
deserve
understand succeed
gave
talking
fought helped told
mean
stood working
created starting
leave saw tried saying standing
made
taken call
remember
known
started
feel given haven’t
done
comes
created manufacturing
support
built put looking
knew
taking
isn’t
continue
lost
serve
thought worked
use
took
made
meet
is
came
live wasn’t
think
thank
being
seen have
be been
has
were had was
v1
v2
Fig. 10 Variation among verbs
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
u1
u2
Fig. 11 Variation among
speeches based on verb usage
576 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
conventional ‘‘ly’’ adverbs. The left-hand end is primarily
adverbs of quality and time, e.g., ‘‘nearly’’, ‘‘exactly’’,
‘‘later’’, and ‘‘earlier’’. The adverbs in the lower right are
those that are favored by Obama (2012) and Santorum, as
shown in Fig. 16.
Figure 17 shows a standard pattern of adverb use for all
of the candidates in the 2008 cycle and for the Republicans
in the 2012 cycle. Once again, Obama’s language use in the
2012 cycle is very different to all of the others. This may be
partly explained by adverbs such as ‘‘back’’, ‘‘here’’,
‘‘now’’ that may reflect relentless campaigning, but it is
still startling.
Figure 18 shows the variation with time for each of the
candidates. The patterns are qualitatively quite similar for
all of them.
Figure 19 shows the variation in use of adverbs with
time. Again we see a flattening for McCain in 2008 and
Obama in 2012 as they reduce the number of different
patterns of adverbs they use.
4.5 Positive words
We now turn to explicit word lists that describe positivity
and negativity. Both of these lists were developed in a
business context, so they have an economic or consumer
flavor (rather than a directly adversarial flavor).
Figure 20 shows the variation among these positive
words. The basic shape is single-factored with the most
positive words at the left (‘‘win’’ a popular election word,
‘‘strong’’, ‘‘progress’’) and more generic and emotionless
words at the right (‘‘enable’’, ‘‘enhance’’, ‘‘advantageous’’,
‘‘efficient’’). The words ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘great’’ behave dif-
ferently from all of the others, and as antonyms of one
another, perhaps because both are typically almost empty
of content and the choice between them becomes an indi-
vidual habit. The fact that the structure is almost exactly
single-factored shows that this list does capture a property
of the document set that varies in a linear way.
Figure 21 shows the variation among speeches, much
expanded vertically compared to the word variation, but
still essentially single-factored. There is much less struc-
ture to the variation than for any of the word categories we
have seen so far—every candidate shows considerable
variation from high to lower positivity (except perhaps
Santorum).
Figure 22 shows a very weak differentiation by party
with points corresponding to Democratic candidates slight
above those of Republican candidates—almost certainly
because of higher rates of occurrence of ‘‘good’’ rather than
‘‘great’’.
Figure 23 shows more directly that there is considerable
variation in the way that all candidates use these positive
words over time. This is evident even for those candidates
for whom only a small number of speeches are included. It
is evident that Obama’s positivity decreases between the
2008 and 2012 campaigns.
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
u1
u2
Fig. 12 Variation among
speeches based on verb usage
by party and cycle
Inferring the mental state of influencers 577
123
Author's personal copy
−1.5 −1
(a)
(c) (d)
(f)
(h)(g)
(e)
(b)−0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
3 1
15
9 2
29 23 27
24
26
30
5 10
17 13 12
28 31
20 7
14
8 21
22
11
18
4 25
16
19
6
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
56
72
57
47
55
53
62
3
50
71 65 66 5
61
1 6 73
75
21 74 19
43 67
37
68
18
15 60 64 70 42
40
35 38 69 58
12
17 63
9
28
2
4
52 54
23 29 59 36 30
8
49
46
33 26
10
11
48 41
44 13
25 51
39
45 20 34
32 27 22
24
14
31 7 16
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
38
22
14
6
81
28 31 102
46 78 16 48
62 33
26 50 104
72 94 41
37 1
51 66
9
107
21
57
54 64 80 12 3
5
63 75 55
71 74 15
96
4
69 58
11 27 24 20
68 60
47 53 30 32
95
2
65
34
7 82
39
43 52 77 85 10
23 89 61 25
56 84
45 83 105
36
88 100
79 29
97 86 99 108 8 98 92
91
113 93
109 106 101 103 73
70
87 111 35
67 110 13
49
40 18 112
42
19 76 59 90
17
44
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2
1
4 3
5
6
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
3
1 5
4
2
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
9
14
17
18
4
15 6
16
13
7
8 3 12
1 2
19 10 5 11
21
20 22
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2
3
6
4
1 5 7
9
8
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2 41
49
7
15 48
14 8 21 65 23
72 18 54
26 60
5 32
56
85 132 3
27 28
130 94 131 90 134
12
152
128
126 133 62
6
119 117
17
121 118 116
91 129 63 68 108
22
61 135
115
71 20 33
136
36
84 92
120
87
107
19
16
124 64 86
46
125
25
112
38
139 137
59 37
13
140
142
83 79 78 66
102
35
143
106 81 89
150 145
9
82
52
146
93
75
29
76
1
73 123 69
101
141
67
151
70
4 10
55
111 30
88
58
34
2 138 147
110
148 144
95
113
42
104
77 45
96 24
74
97
50
99 80
31
51
109
98
103
105 100
43
11 114 39
44 57
149
40 53
127
122 47
Fig. 13 Temporal variation
based on verbs
578 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
Figure 24 shows the variation in use of positive
words with time. Clinton shows a decrease as the bit-
terly fought primary campaign draws to a close.
McCain shows a sudden sharp increase late in the 2008
campaign, possibly reflecting the moment when it
appeared that his chances had improved. Romney
shows large oscillation in the later stages of his
campaign.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450−0.2
−0.15
−0.1
−0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15Fig. 14 Trend in verb use with
time for all candidates
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2−2.5
−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
even
more
still
well
off
only
then
back
so
better
somehow
instead
ago
ahead
because ever
longer
also
best
rather already over
yet
before
everywhere
often
first alone sometimes importantly simply
— – else
bravely twice elsewhere
overseas soon gladly
obviously
easier " nearly suddenly usually
always
directly
fundamentally
however aggressively
probably completely strongly basically
just
nowhere almost
forward
backwards behind generally seriously effectively
greatly here’s offshore
maybe
mr differently economically long apparently unfortunately further
too
quickly fully wisely
along easy
anywhere
otherwise — meanwhile mostly slowly
fast honestly – — surely
" forth forever currently badly forwards
absolutely
regardless eventually
hard
rally perhaps faster
through
later apart –
away
someday barely overnight anyway
safely exactly responsibly automatically potentially historically according
aside re dramatically consistently illegally backward
desperately definitely necessarily ” clearly easily organizer "
now
s ill "
— constantly yeah entirely straight harder
abroad ’
deeply
literally precisely
close
’
particularly
less frankly ultimately in
politically fairly late
recently . either closer t
immediately somewhere truly
right no
rarely certainly earlier
— –
early upon anymore most
far
low
down
once finally especially
really
around
much
together
on
there
about
sure
actually
yes
never
here
again
out
up
v1
v2
Fig. 15 Variation among
adverbs
Inferring the mental state of influencers 579
123
Author's personal copy
4.6 Negative words
The variation among negative words is shown in Fig. 25.
Once again it is almost a single-factored structure,
validating it as a word list that genuinely captures an
underlying property. The exceptional words (‘‘crisis’’,
‘‘cut’’, ‘‘deficit’’) are all words that are particularly ger-
mane to political discussion and they are evidently used in
−1.2 −1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
u1
u2
Fig. 16 Variation among
speeches based on adverb usage
−1.2 −1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
u1
u2
Fig. 17 Variation among
speeches based on adverb usage
by party and cycle
580 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
18
19
4 7
16
6
28
11
14 22
25
20 12
21
17
8
31
26 30 10
29 27
5 13
23
24
2
15
1
9
3
(a) (b)
(d)(c)
(e) (f)
(h)(g)
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
7
24 16
51
56
25 14 20
44
4
27
54 34 39
17
29
32
2 23 9
41 48 52
18
26
38 60 61
22
15
45
59
33
58
49 10
11 31 46
37
30 28
47
74 35
21
68
63 72 42 5
67
64
70 73
36
19
13
69
8
75
1 6
53
57
66 43
71
40
65
3
62 55
12
50
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
18
44
70
13
59
87
42 67
19
8 112
90 113
108
106 61
100
86
76
101
35
109
25 111
93
91
110
103
23
92
29
98
45
17 40
105 83 88
89
84 58
73 97
99
27
36
79
77
32
47 71 74
56 39 95
85 82 60
102
10
66 68
64 80 63
78
20 12
30
7
65
24 33
43
75
52
94 69
34
72
81
49
2 11 50 3 51
57
15 16
41
26
62
55
5 46
104
53
6
21
96
1
48
22
37
54 4 31 9
107
14
38
28
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
6
3
5
4
1
2
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
4 2 5
1
3
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
20
22
21
11 5
19
10
15
1
12
8 18
3
6
16 13
14 17
7 2
9
4
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
8
1
9
7
6
5
2
4 3
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
47
50
74
78
57
77 40
105
114
43
103
80
100
122
53 69 58 104 98
99 67
36
127
35
110
70
148
76 121 44 102
75
113
39
55 79
111
42
2
52 141
1
24 10 109
82 38 124
46
34
30 120
9
125
97
73
112
95
81
29
144
4
45 96
142
11
149
51 25
17
89
31
33
101
93
140
13
66
59
147
37
128
63
137 138
61
107
151
117
115 92 129
16
139
64
83 145
123 22
116
71
126
135
119
86 143
68
150
91
136
106
6
108
118
88 94 84
132 12
87
19
20
133
134
131
146 90
82 72
48
62
130
23 65
5
85
60
54
56
8 21
152
26
49 18 32
14
15 7 3
72
41
Fig. 18 Temporal variation
based on adverbs
Inferring the mental state of influencers 581
123
Author's personal copy
a different way than the remainder of the words—perhaps
they are not really regarded as negative in this context.
Examples of words at the right-hand end are ‘‘against’’,
‘‘worst’’, ‘‘bad’’, ‘‘problems’’, ‘‘lost’’, and ‘‘serious’’.
Words at the left-hand end are more specific and again less
emotionally charged: ‘‘criminals’’, ‘‘doubted’’, ‘‘obsolete’’,
‘‘disregards’’, ‘‘contempt’’, and ‘‘secrecy’’.
Figure 26 shows the variation among speeches, with
negativity increasing to the right. Again there is little dif-
ferentiation between candidates, except that Obama’s 2008
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450−0.15
−0.1
−0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2Fig. 19 Trend in adverbs with
time for all candidates
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5−2
−1
0
1
2
3
4
better−JJR
opportunity−NN
prosperity−NN dream−NN
strong−JJ
win−VB opportunities−NNS improve−VB progress−NN easy−JJ perfect−JJ stronger−JJR success−NN strongest−JJT
innovation−NN ingenuity−NN dream−VB
despite−IN benefit−VB
prosperous−JJ rewarded−VBN rewarding−JJ
outstanding−JJ
benefit−NN strengthens−VBZ happiness−NN
strengthen−VB
efficient−JJ advantage−NN
enjoy−VB reward−VB winning−VBG beautiful−JJ innovative−NN
confident−JJ honor−VB succeeding−VBG
greatest−JJT
easier−RBR easy−RB resolve−NN resolve−VB advancing−VBG
achieve−VB
favorite−JJ efficiency−NN advantages−NNS gain−VB happy−JJ stabilized−VBN ideal−NN encouraging−VBG advances−NNS creativity−NN succeeded−VBN efficiently−RB invented−VBD optimistic−JJ
gain−NN boom−NN profitable−JJ alliance−NN alliances−NNS encouraged−VBN destined−VBN exciting−JJ
strength−NN
invent−VB stabilize−VB greater−JJR achieving−VBG prospers−VBZ enjoyed−VBD enhancing−VBG enhance−VB excellent−JJ successful−JJ achievements−NNS solving−VBG incredibly−QL benefiting−VBN enjoyed−VBN easier−JJR smooth−JJ reward−JJ accomplished−VBN exceptional−JJ encourages−VBZ innovates−NNS honors−NNS assures−VBZ innovating−NN inventing−VBG popular−JJ excitement−NN effective−JJ benefiting−NN pleased−VBN superior−JJ assured−VBD excellence−NN loyal−JJ distinction−NN honoring−VBG breakthroughs−NNS accomplished−VBD friendly−JJ vibrant−JJ honorable−JJ adequately−RB perfected−VBN spectacularly−RB innovator−NN inventors−NNS exclusively−RB collaborative−NN rebound−NN collaborating−NN enables−VBZ encouraging−JJ desired−VBN prospered−VBN benefited−VBN improves−VBZ accomplishments−NNS upturn−NN winner−NN assured−VBN inventions−NNS outperforming−VBG empower−JJR enjoys−VBZ favoring−VBG efficient−NN collaborate−VB invention−NN encouraged−VBD empowering−VBG breakthrough−NN accomplishment−NN enjoying−VBG lucrative−JJ able−VB profitability−NN tremendously−QL creative−JJ encouragement−NN good−UH benefitted−VBN attain−VB dependable−JJ achievement−NN enable−VB enabled−VBN proactive−JJ succeed−VB inventive−JJ boosted−VBD strong−RB beneficially−RB regained−VBN boom−UH benefiting−VB exceptionally−QL attainment−NN exclusive−JJ inspirational−JJ innovating−VB progresses−VBZ good−RB vibrancy−NN diligent−JJ satisfying−VBG win−NIL delightful−JJ improved−VBD enthusiastically−RB happiest−JJT satisfying−JJ good−NP impressed−VBD surpassed−VBN compliment−NN regained−VBD regain−RB meritorious−JJ rebound−VBN revolutionize−NNS prospering−VBG achieves−VBZ distinctive−JJ compliment−VBN reward−NP collaborated−VBD desirable−JJ solves−VBZ unsurpassed−JJ bolstered−VBN beautifully−RB accomplishes−NNS rebound−VB outperformed−VBD honored−VBD perfect−VB exemplary−NN beneficially−NN favorable−JJ satisfactory−JJ perfectly−RB rebounded−VBN benefiting−JJ accomplishing−VBG winner−NP creatively−RB favorites−NNS stabilizes−VBZ improved−VBN gained−VBD innovate−VB great−QL pleased−VBD enhances−VBZ boost−VB advantageous−JJ constructive−JJ beneficial−JJ enabled−VBD delight−NN inspiration−NN progress−VB spectacular−JJ surpassing−VBG enhanced−VBN stabilization−NN empower−VB win−NP excited−VBN gain−RB assuring−VBG booming−VBG stable−NN invented−VBN attractive−JJ advancement−NN winners−NNS stabilizing−VBG prospered−VBD plentiful−JJ satisfied−VBN regain−VB win−NN gained−VBN ideal−JJ innovators−NNS empowered−VBN distinctions−NNS incredibly−RB regaining−VBG abundant−JJ succeeded−VBD honors−VBZ charitable−JJ brilliant−JJ valuable−JJ pleasant−JJ stabilized−JJ boost−NN improvement−NN strengths−NNS innovations−NNS collaboration−NN diligently−RB popularity−NN happily−RB strengthened−VBN influential−JJ positive−JJ favored−VBN successfully−RB honor−NN
prestige−NN achieved−VBN impressed−VBN impress−VB accomplish−VB receptive−JJ satisfaction−NN leading−VBG worthy−JJ
honor−NP stability−NN strengthening−VBG achieved−VBD perfectly−QL gaining−VBG
incredible−JJ enthusiastic−JJ honored−VBN
fantastic−JJ improvements−NNS stable−JJ transparency−NN successes−NNS improving−VBG delighted−VBN rewards−NNS
enthusiasm−NN good−NN
leadership−NN
tremendous−JJ integrity−NN impressive−JJ pleasure−NN greatly−RB reward−NN succeeds−VBZ easily−RB gains−NNS highest−JJT
greatness−NN assure−VB
better−RBR able−JJ
good−JJ
great−JJ
v1
v2
Fig. 20 Variation among
positive words
582 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
speeches tend to be towards the top and his 2012 speeches
towards the bottom, probably reflecting the importance of
the global financial ‘crisis’ in 2008 (Fig. 27).
Notice that it is possible to be both more positive and
more negative than average, e.g., Santorum. Thus, posi-
tivity and negativity, measured this way, are not two ends
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
u1
u2
Fig. 21 Variation among
speeches based on positive word
usage—increasing positivity to
the left
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
u1
u2
Fig. 22 Variation among
speeches based on positive word
usage by party and cycle
Inferring the mental state of influencers 583
123
Author's personal copy
−0.8 −0.6
(a)
(c)
(e) (f)
(h)(g)
(d)
(b)−0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
16 6
25
7
22
13 14
21
4
18
11 27
29 19
17
12
30
20 28
10 26
23
24
2
31
1
8
5 9
15
3
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
24
25 7
44 46
11
30
16 14
20
18
39
58
10
27
32
5
4 9
2
1
33
15
51 40
36
49 34
52
13
29
45
3
37
54
42
38
23
12
41
43
48 8
21
26
56
19
31
59
6
22
67
69
63 35
28
60
17
64
50
57
53
74 47 73
61 75
68
66
72
65 71
70
62
55
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
19
59
44
76
18
40 35
73
13
87 112 110 111
70
86 52
17
39
67
77
92 82
45
90
57
42
88
29
83 49
79
104
61
36
7
10
43 93
89
68
109
64
108 85 95
65 113
98 8
33
99
84
80
66
25
106
30 11
97
100
60
103
75
50
20
26
101
55
102
58 62
53
28
81
78
32
23
54 24
105
69 91
14
12
71
4
96
27
9
63 3 37
47
107
34
74 16
22
94
41
56
5
21 6 72
46
31
15
51
2
38
48
1
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
6
5
3
2
4
1
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 2
5
3
4
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
19
22
5
1 21 20
11
10
2
15
8 13
3
6 12
16
14
7
9
4
18
17
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
8
7
1 4
9
5
3
2
6
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
31 11
57
100
110 122 70
88
2
55
19 95 47
112
113
39
101
53
99
103
1
111
12
34
98
137 44
83
36 51
45 50
29
138 127
109
89
42
59
25 136
30 96
4
40
106
139 115
87
33
22
92
17
105
10
9 37 97 66
143
16
116
13
140
43
141
84
114 24
149
6
80
108
102
77
118
58
107
117
94
147
151
64
81
71
69
76
148
142 145
56
82
20
144
82 72
35
90
86
104
125
54
5
120 46
75
123
63
3
67
85
91
73 79
26
146
8
78
23
60
7
52 152 38
128 74
126
119
14
32
121
93
131
129
15
61
132
150 135
72
124
21 62
68
130
18
133
48
134
49
65
41
Fig. 23 Variation based on
positive words over time
584 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
of a spectrum but two different (and, to be sure, somewhat
opposed) spectra.
Figure 28 shows that variation of negative language use
with time. Notice that all candidates show considerable vari-
ation, even those for whom few speeches have been collected.
Figure 29 shows the variation in negative words with
time. For all candidates, the main pattern seems to be that
negativity increases in brief (4–10 speech) bursts, and then
reverts to a more typical level. There is a slow decrease for
Obama over time.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450−0.2
−0.15
−0.1
−0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15Fig. 24 Trend in positive
words with time for all
candidates
−0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
4
bad−JJ lose−VB
deficits−NNS question−NN
difficult−JJ unemployment−NN lost−VBD broken−VBN
disaster−NN
worst−JJT challenge−NN doubt−NN
dangerous−JJ disagree−VB
critical−JJ
threats−NNS sacrifice−VB
failure−NN adversity−NN
violate−VB fear−NN
defeat−NN worse−JJR petty−JJ
violence−NN fraud−NN
opposed−VBD defend−VB
denied−VBN hurting−VBG threaten−VB barriers−NNS abolish−VB defeat−VB confront−VB crucial−JJ tragedy−NN
questions−NNS
disappointed−VBN danger−NN
refinance−VB reckless−JJ recall−VB destruction−NN unacceptable−JJ overcome−VB breaks−NNS force−VB threatened−VBN corruption−NN troubles−NNS illegally−RB dissent−NN hardship−NN sacrificed−VBN lost−VBN fears−NNS
argument−NN
urgent−JJ stopped−VBN failed−VBD
closed−VBN complicated−VBN refinancing−VBG absence−NN wasted−VBN foreclosures−NNS
refusing−VBG prevents−VBZ overlooked−VBN diminished−VBN obstacle−NN bridge−NN concern−NN late−JJ reject−VB penalties−NNS moratorium−NN concerned−VBN distract−VB serious−JJ
hardships−NNS suffer−VB strain−NN deprived−VBN inevitable−JJ catastrophe−NN accident−NN delayed−VBN deeper−RBR fails−VBZ disappearing−VBG bankruptcies−NN overcoming−VBG broken−JJ burdens−NNS foreclose−VB concerns−VBZ losses−NNS deepest−JJT casualties−NNS arguing−VBG drag−VB complain−VB obstacles−NNS dangers−NNS missed−VBN undisclosed−JJ damage−NN contrary−JJ confused−VBN defaults−NNS vulnerable−JJ seriously−RB weakened−VBD arrest−NN fear−VB frustrating−VBG sacrificing−VBG prevention−NN disappear−VB defeats−VBZ preventing−VBG
easing−VBG delay−NN weakening−NN careless−JJ defeating−VBG abusive−JJ dysfunctional−JJ investigate−VB ill−RB deny−VB defending−VBG ignore−VB closed−VBD opposed−VBN monopoly−NN forced−VBN accused−VBN bail−NN suffered−VBN collapsing−VBG catastrophic−JJ misunderstood−VBN drastic−JJ provoke−VB distressed−VBN criticize−VB tolerate−VB conflict−NN doubt−VB erodes−NNS counterfeit−JJ concede−VB disadvantaged−JJ risky−JJ convictions−NNS error−NN collapsed−VBD argue−VB challenging−JJ protests−NNS burdensome−JJ immoral−JJ overpayments−NN defended−VBN impaired−VBN unstable−JJ slowdown−NN bailout−NN loses−VBZ distorting−NN disregard−NN claims−NNS confined−VBN burden−VB destroyed−VBN damaged−VBN unreasonable−JJ alienated−VBN disregards−VBZ
challenges−VBZ summons−NN limitations−NNS weaker−JJR injuries−NNS panic−NN misplaced−VBN delay−VB persistence−NN sue−VB manipulation−NN bad−VBD criminal−NN insufficient−JJ slower−JJR drastically−RB abandonment−NN halt−VB overcome−VBN contrary−NN seized−VBN disrupted−VBN disproportionately−RB foreclosed−VBN shortfalls−NNS problems−NNS volatile−JJ vulnerability−NN unintended−JJ questioned−VBN scrutiny−NN calamitous−JJ persist−VB shortage−NN barrier−NN sharply−RB reluctant−JJ breakdown−NN misled−VBD protested−VBD poorly−RB defer−VB ignoring−VBG prosecution−NN severity−NN faults−NNS illegal−JJ offended−VBN wasted−VBD frustrates−VBZ inability−NN deepening−NN incarceration−NN bankrupt−NN harsher−JJR difficulty−NN collapsed−VBN disagreed−VBD trouble−VB slowed−VBN defended−VBD wrongly−RB unconscionable−JJ unpredictable−JJ tightening−VBG detain−VB violated−VBD prejudices−NNS restructured−VBN pressing−JJ criticism−NN contraction−NN obsolete−JJ exploits−NNS prone−JJ staggering−JJ confronting−VBG challenging−VBG argued−VBD recalling−VBG disappearance−NN disgraceful−JJ fines−NNS criticized−VBD exposed−VBN flawed−JJ collapse−VB delays−NNS defend−NN unfunded−VBN dishonor−VB inconsistency−NN litigate−VB plaintiff−NN suing−VBG idle−JJ lie−NN strained−VBN worry−VB destabilizing−VBG disagreements−NNS complaints−NNS exploiting−VBG difficulties−NNS deficient−JJ sued−VBD foreclosing−VBG defends−VBZ concedes−VBZ deteriorating−VBG recalled−VBN seriousness−NN misunderstanding−NN distortion−NN eroded−VBN degrading−VBG suspected−VBN disputes−NNS confinement−NN seizing−VBG disappears−VBZ penalize−VB disasters−NNS incompetent−JJ prosecuted−VBN refused−VBN inflicted−VBN ignores−VBZ quit−VB disagreed−VBN destabilize−VB embarrass−NN disregarded−VBN abolishing−VBG distracted−VBN disgrace−NN distressed−JJ harm−NN depressing−JJ rejecting−VBG uncontrolled−JJ exploit−VB argued−VBN coercion−NN offend−VB obscene−JJ contempt−NN prejudice−NN injurious−JJ unaware−JJ criticizing−VBG controversial−JJ omit−VB discourages−VBZ guilty−JJ condemns−VBZ threatening−VBG miss−VB impediment−NN protest−NN stops−VBZ disadvantage−NN mistakes−NNS liquidate−NN intimidation−NN erode−VB deliberate−JJ unfortunately−RB diminish−VB stagnation−NN strains−NNS weakest−JJT deceptive−JJ underinsured−VBN unpaid−JJ picketed−VBD casualty−NN incomplete−JJ declining−VBG secrecy−NN punished−VBN suffered−VBD failings−NNS fined−VBN misunderstand−VB declined−VBD convicted−VBN contradict−VB exploitation−NN overrun−VBN shutting−VBG offended−VBD conflicts−NNS neglected−VBN bad−RB
foreclosure−NN drag−NN denial−NN disappeared−VBD postpone−VB default−NN fraudulent−NN evade−VB suffering−NN unfairly−RB subjecting−JJ upset−VBN cancel−VB sued−VBN dismissed−VBD weaknesses−NNS lagging−VBG overlook−VB inexperienced−JJ layoffs−NNS decline−NN seized−VBD implicated−VBN vetoed−VBD harmed−VBN faulty−JJ deter−VB abandoned−VBD underfunded−JJ lost−RBT
recession−NN frustrating−JJ drought−NN misrepresenting−VBG accidentally−RB lacking−VBG picket−NN discouraging−JJ turbulence−NN prosecute−VB calamity−NN deepens−VBZ denies−VBZ neglect−NN suspended−VBN miscalculation−NN verdict−NN uninsured−VBN confrontation−NN interrupt−VB errors−NNS posing−VBG slowing−VBG breached−VBN disregard−VB unrest−NN embarrassed−VBN deepened−VBD predatory−JJ denigrate−VB dissenters−NNS tainted−VBN imperative−JJ inefficient−JJ dismissed−VBN dismissing−VBG unfortunate−JJ confine−VB complaining−VBG devalue−VB rejected−VBN suffers−VBZ doubts−NNS depressed−VBN renounce−VB prematurely−RB unexpected−JJ deficiencies−NNS flaws−NNS disturb−VB displaced−VBN surrender−NN interrupted−VBD violation−NN downturn−NN inconsistent−JJ pervasive−JJ inattention−NN hampering−VBG abdication−NN lie−NP cautioned−VBD manipulates−NNS impair−VB defendant−NN imperfection−NN aggravates−VBZ contested−VBN criticizes−VBZ liquidated−VBN missteps−NN bankrupting−NN confessed−VBN problematic−JJ condemned−VBD unproductive−JJ indicted−VBN provoked−VBD inquiry−NN discontinue−VB abdicating−VBG construe−VB unwillingness−NN unsuccessful−JJ ceasing−VBG hinder−NN deceased−JJ hazards−NNS dismal−JJ uncontrollable−JJ surrendering−VBG liquidation−NN overlooking−VBG interrupted−VBN allege−VB divorce−VB imbalance−NN deepened−VBN neglects−VBZ unfriendly−JJ impending−VBG resignation−NN overturned−VBD fatalities−NNS underperforming−VBG embarrassment−NN prejudiced−VBN persisting−VBG unreasonably−QL diminishes−VBZ disavow−VB alienating−JJ refinanced−VBN shut−VBD confrontational−NN stresses−NNS negligent−JJ abrupt−JJ objection−NN devolved−VBN flaw−NN deceitful−JJ lapse−NN diversion−NN pervasiveness−NN carelessness−NN mislead−VB stolen−VBN incidence−NN unwelcome−JJ scandals−NNS shutdowns−NNS drawbacks−NNS insubordination−NN frivolous−JJ provoked−VBN violators−NNS worsening−VBG cumbersome−JJ foregoing−VBG purporting−VBG disproportionate−JJ disparity−NN misses−VBZ encroach−VB slowed−VBD imprudent−RB acquiesce−VB complications−NNS distracted−VBD disturbed−VBN deceit−NN divest−VB prolonged−VBN drawbacks−NN abusing−VBG testify−VB abrogate−VB adverse−JJ terminated−VBN stressed−VBN unsuited−JJ unlawful−JJ laundering−VBG annoyance−NN defaming−VBG terminating−VBG overturned−VBN coerce−VB knowingly−RB wrong−NP stress−VB condemnations−NN critically−QL closing−NN balked−VBD harassment−NN unexpectedly−RB inaccessible−JJ contradictions−NNS bankrupting−JJ imprisonment−NN inaccurate−JJ displace−VB summons−VBZ falsely−RB inadequacy−NN depriving−VBG barred−VBD damage−VB distortions−NNS concealing−VBG diminishing−VBG exoneration−NN harming−VBG interruption−NN interference−NN evading−VBG obscenity−NN protesting−VBG exposed−VBD onerous−JJ distorts−VBZ lost−AP reassigned−VBN disparage−NN construed−VBD penalized−VBN disrupt−VB dissident−JJ disagree−NN defame−VB dissatisfaction−NN insufficiently−RB disqualification−NN bans−VBZ egregiously−QL unavoidable−JJ unsuccessfully−RB worsens−VBZ misses−NNS accusing−VBG harmed−VBD devastate−VB contentious−JJ hinder−VB intermittent−JJ violated−VBN rationalizing−VBG perjury−NN inferior−JJ incorrect−VB boycotting−NN undue−JJ prosecutions−NNS aggravated−VBN protesters−NPS counterfeiting−JJ disincentives−NNS harshness−NN suffer−NN unauthorized−JJ misrepresented−VBN harm−JJ egregious−QL poorly−QL fines−VBZ deterioration−NN unneeded−JJ unlawfully−JJ disqualifications−NNS neglect−VB imbalances−NNS annoyed−VBN resigned−VBN disturbance−NN lose−JJ unsafe−JJ dereliction−NN underestimated−VBN degrade−NN verdicts−NNS interfered−VBN insolvent−NN infraction−NN postponed−VBN defrauded−VB bans−NNS conflicting−VBG distracting−VBG incidents−NNS exaggerate−VB disclosed−VBN endangered−JJ expulsion−NN encroaches−VBZ dissatisfied−VBN diverting−VBG indictment−NN deceptions−NNS disappointing−JJ infractions−NNS shutdown−NN impediments−NNS improprieties−NNS harshest−JJT harassed−VBN canceled−VBN depresses−NNS boycotts−NN concealed−VBN confuses−VBZ harms−VBZ attrition−NN overcharges−NNS repudiate−VB sentencing−VBG recessions−NNS punishments−NNS stagnate−NN objected−VBN misapplied−VBN divest−NN undercuts−VBZ inappropriate−JJ deteriorated−VBN violently−RB sue−NP pleaded−VBD escalate−NN derogatory−JJ suspected−VBD closings−NNS unforeseen−JJ controversies−NNS disagreeable−JJ corrections−NNS indict−VB deadlock−NN underfunded−VBN prosecuting−VBG assaults−VBZ defends−NNS uncompetitive−JJ bankrupts−NN disappoint−VB harsh−JJ grievances−NNS deteriorate−VB anomaly−NN restructure−NN impede−VB erred−VBN stagnating−VBG stagnated−JJ bankrupted−JJ impede−VBD disinterested−VBN damages−VBZ contradicting−VB inequity−NN declines−VBZ questioned−VBD harming−JJ disastrously−RB corrupting−VBG neglecting−VBG accusation−NN erode−VBD punishing−VBG protesters−NNS infringing−NN misjudgment−NN detriment−NN crises−VBZ offender−NN litigant−NN unintentionally−RB intrusion−NN unlawfully−QL hindrance−NN reluctance−NN fail−NN worsen−VB abandons−VBD suspending−VBG panics−NNS detract−VB distorts−NNS refinancing−NN censure−NN stagnated−VBN confronted−VBD dishonorable−JJ renouncing−VBG boycott−VB confiscate−VB summoning−VBG forestalls−VBZ suspended−VBD shortfall−NN worsened−VBN tense−JJ exposes−VBZ counterfeiting−VBG escalating−NN deprive−VB rejection−NN misdirected−VBN allegations−NNS restate−NN impermissible−JJ warn−VB encroachment−NN defeats−NNS degrade−VB punishment−NN fears−VBZ delaying−VBG harassing−VBG fugitives−NNS conceded−VBN incident−NN collision−NN lacked−VBN declines−NNS ill−MD bribery−NN disrupting−VBG disloyal−JJ adversarial−NN divert−VB usurp−VB uncorrected−VBN worse−NN weakens−VBZ offends−VBZ devalued−VBN negatives−NNS lag−VB depresses−VBZ destabilizing−JJ exacerbating−NN forego−VB dissidents−NNS insolvency−NN hostility−NN overcharging−VBG obstruction−NN exaggerated−VBN suspend−VB adversary−NN persistent−JJ breach−NN condemned−VBN fired−VBD immature−JJ worries−VBZ diverted−VBN undermines−VBZ delays−VBZ traumatic−JJ abandoning−VBG grossly−RB opposing−VBG warned−VBN poses−VBZ impedes−VBZ deprives−VBZ endangers−NNS solvency−NN plea−NN forbid−VB burned−VBN relinquish−VB condemning−VBG perils−NNS inconvenience−NN disregarded−VBD disappoints−NNS ill−JJ quit−NN offenders−NNS dangerously−RB worrying−VBG unqualified−JJ distracts−VBZ boycott−NN wrongdoing−NN confessed−VBD punishes−VBZ dispute−NN untenable−JJ demise−NN shocked−VBN injury−NN refused−VBD worries−NNS precipitous−JJ questionable−JJ underpaid−JJ interfere−VB straining−VBG uncover−VB distorting−VBG persisted−VBD tragedies−NNS harm−VB destructive−JJ contend−VB divestment−NN undermining−VBG bail−VB illicit−JJ renegotiating−VBG conceded−VBD fallout−NN disagreement−NN lack−VB condemnation−NN exaggeration−NN ridicule−VB dropped−VBD lingering−VBG threatens−VBZ hostile−JJ manipulating−VBG restructuring−VBG mislead−JJ embarrassing−VBG shortages−NNS substandard−JJ unavailable−JJ discourage−VB unjust−JJ condemn−VB doubted−VBD weak−JJ erratic−JJ surrender−VB damaged−VBD manipulate−VB collapses−VBZ repudiated−VBN warning−NN controversy−NN violating−VBG ignored−VBN
arguments−NNS premature−JJ penalty−NN abuses−NNS destroys−NNS arrested−VBN stress−NN confusion−NN recklessly−RB assaults−NNS incompetence−NN unfunded−JJ claims−VBZ abuse−VB caution−NN confronts−VBZ expose−VB correction−NN suspicion−NN undermine−VB weaken−VB destroy−VB detrimental−JJ imperil−VB defaulting−NN unfair−JJ weakened−VBN restructure−VB deter−NN overturn−VB devastated−VBN defeated−VBN inequities−NNS defensive−JJ degradation−NN defeated−VBD doubtful−JJ accuse−VB confusing−VBG worthless−JJ erosion−NN criticized−VBN slow−VB contradiction−NN unrealistic−JJ incompetents−NNS dishonest−JJ cease−VB shuts−VBZ violations−NNS abuse−NN recalled−VBD criticisms−NNS challenged−VBN disparities−NNS challenged−VBD ineffective−JJ protest−VB distorted−VBN critically−RB setbacks−NNS sacrifices−NNS inadequate−JJ misinformation−NN complaint−NN shut−VB warning−VBG excessive−JJ deliberately−RB subjected−VBN imperfections−NNS cutbacks−NNS slow−JJ criminals−NNS harshly−RB crises−NNS failing−VBG volatility−NN refusal−NN offending−VBG assault−NN suspension−NN bridge−VB accusations−NNS denied−VBD confines−NNS undercut−NN incapable−JJ forced−VBD lack−NN hurt−VBN lie−VB confuse−VB embargo−NN recklessness−NN abused−VBN costly−JJ persists−VBZ claiming−VBG suffering−VBG distractions−NNS objections−NNS instability−NN arrest−VB investigation−NN injured−VBN deterrent−NN burdened−VBN deception−NN frustrations−NNS renegotiate−VB decline−VB loss−NN concerns−NNS exploited−VBN halt−NN disruption−NN corrupted−VBN warnings−NNS conviction−NN confess−VB disclose−VB abandoned−VBN unsustainable−JJ ignored−VBD outmoded−JJ devastation−NN forcing−VBG dysfunction−NN closure−NN opposes−VBZ overdue−JJ impeding−VBG rejected−VBD jeopardize−VB suffers−NNS impossible−JJ concern−VB abandon−VB
burdening−VBG flawed−VBN deterred−VBN distraction−NN endanger−VB overburdened−VBN disturbing−JJ bankruptcy−NN violent−JJ artificially−RB inefficiency−NN aftermath−NN droughts−NNS bankrupt−VB unwilling−JJ mismanagement−NN adversaries−NNS question−VB stagnant−JJ stopped−VBD stops−NNS confronted−VBN disappointment−NN tragically−RB eroding−VBG distort−VB opposition−NN endangered−VBN exaggerating−VBG hurt−VB sluggish−JJ
oppose−VB questioning−NN investigating−VBG harmful−JJ firing−VBG lying−VBG false−JJ pressing−VBG distress−NN destroying−VBG wasteful−JJ shut−VBN dismiss−VB divorced−VBN trouble−NN severely−RB stopping−VBG wasting−VBG disappointments−NNS dropped−VBN disastrous−JJ devastating−VBG disappeared−VBN investigated−VBN troubled−VBN breaking−VBG closing−VBG disagrees−VBZ
mistaken−VBN hurt−NN criminal−JJ failures−NNS losing−VBG damaging−VBG unnecessary−JJ lacked−VBD crime−NN weakening−VBG urgency−NN weakness−NN threatened−VBD
cut−VBD unemployed−JJ severe−JJ peril−NN denying−VBG
deeper−JJR seize−VB challenge−VB undermined−VBN undocumented−VBN negative−JJ late−RB warned−VBD unable−JJ missed−VBD
unpopular−JJ crimes−NNS break−NN suspect−VB fired−VBN frustration−NN slowly−RB misleading−VBG barred−VBN discredited−VBN threat−NN victims−NNS
frustrated−VBN inconvenient−JJ discouraged−VBN break−VB turmoil−NN refuses−VBZ mistake−NN corrupt−JJ
slowest−JJT
force−NN sacrifice−NN inaction−NN wrong−JJ fault−NN
bankrupt−JJ burden−NN outdated−VBN
against−IN collapse−NN failed−VBN
challenges−NNS problem−NN
tragic−JJ fail−VB
cut−NN
poor−JJ
refuse−VB
cut−VB
breaks−VBZ cut−VBN deficit−NN
crisis−NN
v1
v2
Fig. 25 Variation among
negative words
Inferring the mental state of influencers 585
123
Author's personal copy
4.7 Persona deception
Although the media tends to fixate on factual deception by
politicians, manifest in a plethora of fact checking, there is
little evidence that voters care much about it (Druckman
et al. 2009). This may be because voters have been trained
that politicians’ factual statements are unattached to reality,
and so do not serve as discriminators among them. But it
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
u1
u2
Fig. 26 Variation among
speeches based on negative
word usage—increasing
negativity to the right
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
u1
u2
Fig. 27 Variation among
speeches based on negative
word usage by party and cycle
586 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
3
1
29
15 27
9 24
23
5 30
2 26
13
10
7
28
20
17
12
4
21
11
25 8
14
31
22
19 16
6
18
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
50
3 37
47
18
21
55
38
56
5
57
1
72
53
19
35
69
71
28 62 64
43
65 74 8
36
66 73 68 24 27
60
6
67
61
9 49
42
17 12
40
13
70
22
10
48 33
58
23
25
44 41
4
54
59
51
15 29
30
20 31
45 11 26 75 2
39
63
52
34 46
14
7 32 16
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5
37
50
75
1 47 46 107
31
38
57
15
14
28
41
72 16
94
48 96
9
12 11
56
21
71
4 6
43
58
39 33
30
81
20
29
54
51 26 73
52
34 68
104
27
62 36
74
22
63
25
78
102
66 69
84
32
89
10
85
80
79
53 55
60
7
24
105
45
65
100 61
109
64
82 83
3
106 108
8
113
86
77
97 93
70
49
2
99
67
111
101
35
88
95
91
110
103
87
23
40
92
98
90
112 42
18 59
13
17
19
44
76
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
4 1
2
3 6
5
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
3
5
2
4
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
9 14 17
4
2
15 7
13 3
8 19
1
16
18 10
12
6
5
21
20
11
22
−0.8
(g) (h)
(f)(e)
(c)
(a) (b)
(d)
−0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 3
6
9
4
5
7
2
8
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
49
8
5
91
60
15
18
54
90
23
65 92
41
14
130
7
83
68
3
116
48
85
62
32
21
84
72
134
87
132
56
136
131
111
115
61
26
94 86
128 129 112
6
133
46 38
89 69
36 19
12
93
118
22
66
64
76 63
82
119
117
59
126
108
152
25
67
75
110
73 125
121
33
20
37
70
16
17
81 102
35
78
120 124
135
74
123
143
106 58
88 150
82 72 149
107
139
80
51
142
151
13
141
40
97
145
140 79 71
50 39
101
95
96
100
43
10
9
146 148 52
30
144
55
104
44 77
98
45
105
103
34 109
4
99
53
42
57
11 24 31
147
29
1
127
2
113
47
137
114
138 122
Fig. 28 Variation in negative
words over time
Inferring the mental state of influencers 587
123
Author's personal copy
may also be that, given a limited amount of attention,
voters make up their minds based on perceived personality.
If this latter, then trying to appear better, more compe-
tent, and more attractive as a candidate is a necessary
strategy.
The effort to present a persona that is not one’s actual
personality appears to cause the same textual changes that
occur when factual deception is being employed. We can,
therefore, use the Pennebaker model to assess the extent to
which candidates are trying to present a facade that differs
from reality. This need not be conceived of as a negative
process—all of us attempt to come across as better than we
perhaps are in social situations. Campaigning is just this
process writ large.
Figure 30 shows the variations among the words of the
deception model. The words far from the origin are those
that show the most variation across speeches—it is entirely
typical that these are ‘‘I’’ and its contractions, ‘‘but’’ and
‘‘or’’ as exclusive words, and ‘‘go’’ and ‘‘going’’ as action
verbs. Because of the reversal of direction applied to first-
person singular pronouns and exclusive words, the points
corresponding to them represent reduced frequencies of
their occurrences.
Figure 31 shows the variation among speeches. The
property of deception is two-factored, one factor primarily
associated with first-person singular pronoun use, and the
other primarily with exclusive word use. These tend to be
uncorrelated in normal use, and this is, therefore, reflected
in the changes caused by deception. The figure contains an
axis which runs from maximal deception values (the red
end) to minimal deception values (the green end).
Figure 32 shows that the highest levels of persona decep-
tion are those of Paul and Santorum, both making an attempt
for a job that is a huge stretch for either and, therefore,
needing to project a persona far beyond any they have used
previously; and to a lesser extent Obama in 2008, who faced a
similar challenge. In contrast, Clinton exhibits very low
levels of persona deception, in part because she drops very
easily into exclusive word use in policy-heavy speeches, and
because she made very personal appeals to a very well defined
constituency, resulting in high rates of first-person singular
pronouns. Again there is a sharp distinction between the
model words used by Obama in 2008 and 2012, but the levels
of persona deception remain roughly the same.
The differences among candidates are even more visible
in the language patterns over time, which exhibit more
variation among candidates than any we have shown.
Figure 33 shows the changes in persona deception with
time. The values on the y axis are the sums of the values on
the first two axes in the projection shown in Fig. 31. Two
things are striking in this figure: the amount of short-range
variability (from day to day), and the amount of medium-
range variability (from week to week). This seems to be
evidence that it is difficult to maintain a particular level of
persona deception or, to say it another way, maintaining a
convincing facade seems to be difficult to sustain. Note
especially Clinton whose levels of persona deception drop
sharply. This can be mapped quite directly to changes in
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450−0.2
−0.15
−0.1
−0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15Fig. 29 Trend in negative
words with time for all
candidates
588 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
strategy: in the early primary, she tried to be the most
knowledgeable candidate (and so high exclusive word use);
later she reached out directly to her supporter base with
highly personal speeches (and so high incidence of first-
person singular pronouns) (Fig. 32).
4.8 Integrative complexity
Integrative complexity and its component constructs show
the structural complexity of discussion that each candidate
is using. This is presumably a blend of their own personal
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3−2.5
−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
i−PPSS
i’ve−PPSS
my−PP$
i’m−PPSS
but−CC
although−CS unless−CS
nor−CC
me−PPO
rather−QL however−RB
without−IN
i’d−PPSS rather−RB except−IN jerk−VB follow−VB
me−VBD lies−VBZ mine−NN me−VB or−NIL however−WRB move−NN inadequate−JJ go−UH hate−NN lies−NNS but−IN rather−IN run−VBN sorry−JJ me−NN go−NN worthless−JJ go−RB lie−NN whereas−CS hate−JJ besides−RB my−NN dumb−JJ mine−NP followed−VBN me−VBN stressed−VBN hates−VBZ me−NPS wicked−JJ greed−VBN me−NIL despise−VB taking−NIL lead−VBN hated−VBN or−VB inferior−JJ dislike−VB my−JJ my−NIL lie−NP i−NP hated−VBD lied−VBN disappointing−JJ go−NP fled−VBN my−NP followed−VBD i−NIL except−RB however−WQL walk−NN mine−VB vain−JJ ignorant−JJ go−NP$ carrying−VBG arrived−VBN arrives−VBZ anger−NN but−NIL moved−VBN greed−VBD arrive−VB lonely−JJ
lead−NN besides−IN go−NIL enemy−NN look−NN arrived−VBD lie−VB mine−PP$$
i’ll−PPSS
flew−VBD hate−VB drive−NN crazy−JJ greed−NN afraid−JJ run−NN weak−JJ goes−VBZ fear−VB
myself−PPL
walk−VB moved−VBD driven−VBN drive−VB terrible−JJ
go−VB
carry−VB abandon−VB tragedy−NN fear−NN disappointed−VBN loss−NN action−NN
run−VB
bringing−VBG move−VB
look−VB
lead−VB
going−VBG
taking−VBG take−VB
or−CC
v1
v2
Fig. 30 Variation among
deceptive words
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
u1
u2
Fig. 31 Variation among
speeches based on deceptive
word usage
Inferring the mental state of influencers 589
123
Author's personal copy
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
22
30
29
31 24
19
27 12 3
4
26
1
2
6
10
8 14
11
7
17
23
9
25
13 18 16
21
28
15
20
5
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
4
9 44 3
54
53
43 8 10
29 64
42
56
61
63
67
60
55 72
62 65
18
16
66
1
68
25
32
49
74
70
73
26 33 46
11 5 58
13 59
71
21 15
50
36
35
45 40 69
51
27
75 2
22
17 31 47 7
39 38
30
48
24
41 6
37
23
52 28
20 14 57
19
12
34
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
16
96 79
48 7
23
40
25
70
75 5
71
26
31
36 43
85
104
82
57
84
20
3
77
11 53
76
83 65 89
12
80
87 88
112
13 17
91
90
49 106 8
41
103
78
10
29
50 111
14
101
113
30
47
108
24
100 54
110
105 72
99
98
109
32
9
1
94 92
74
86
55
58 97 93
56
51 18 46
67 45
63
66
59 35
15
4 52
39
64
37
42
33
73 27
107
19 102 38
28
68 44 6
61
95
60 21
69
62
22
34
81
2
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2 4
3
5
1
6
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
2
5
3
4
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
10
21
16
9
22
20
8
17
18 15
11
1 2
6 19 5
3 7
4 12
13
14
−1
(g) (h)
(e) (f)
(c) (d)
(a) (b)
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
8
4
3
6
7
9
5 2
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8−1.2
−1
−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
36
149
50
130
47
53
58 44 4 148 55
35
134
31 40 51
57 43 10
59
143
132 25
129
17
52
135
48
147 24
75
80
46
141 77 11
45 30 151 150
69
34 106
133
91
83
71 39
61
73
108
9 121
111
136 78 131
72 142
38
37
42 118 79
97
112 122
128
109 84 96
13
95
92
124 110 120
68
101
98
86 56
139
99
100
144 54
89
123 146
103 87
721 2
64 93 6 140 74
70
82 72
102
41
114
16
20 62 29
88
126 12
8 1
33 66
81
119
125 115
113
105
49
76 21
15 82 94
116
67
3
22
145
104
138
32
137 117
107 5
60
85 63 7
90
23
19
18
26
14
152 65
Fig. 32 Persona deception
variation by time
590 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
level of sophistication about issues, and their judgements
about the level of sophistication available to or desired by
their audiences.
Figure 34 shows the integrative complexity values for
each of the speeches arranged by candidate. Note that there
is considerable variation from speech to speech, which is
often, particularly in the late stages of a campaign, from
day to day or even from hour to hour. This suggests that
there is considerable low-level alteration in speeches at or
close to the moment of delivery.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450−0.25
−0.2
−0.15
−0.1
−0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25Fig. 33 Trends in persona
deception over time for all
candidates
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8Fig. 34 Integrative complexity
by candidate and time
Inferring the mental state of influencers 591
123
Author's personal copy
As expected, integrative complexities tend to drop in the
later stages of a campaign, but with a slight tendency to
increase in the very last part.
Figures 35 and 36 show how the overall integrative
complexity depends on elaboration and dialectical com-
plexity. Generally speaking, the decrease in integrative
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4501.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1Fig. 35 Elaboration by
candidate and time
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4501
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4Fig. 36 Dialectical complexity
by candidate and time
592 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
complexity in the late stages comes from both reduced
elaboration and reduced dialectical complexity, rather than
from one or the other. It is clear, however, that much of
Obama’s greater integrative complexity in the 2012 cam-
paign comes from greater elaboration.
5 Discussion and conclusions
We now return to consider our hypotheses in the light of
these empirical results.
Our first hypothesis was that influencers would exhibit
consistency across time. There is some evidence to support
this over medium time scales—the temporal sequences for
most candidates and most channels remained in the same
region of the semantic space created from the global use of
each channel. However, it is clear that there is high vari-
ation over short time scales, up to a few days. Either the
process by which speechwriters create speeches is inher-
ently variable over short time scales; or candidates are
unable to sustain ‘the same’ word patterns from day to day.
This latter could be simply boredom, but it could also be a
function of campaign speeches that are inherently artificial,
so candidates have difficulty maintaining consistency.
Persona deception is one area where this is more likely—
there is some evidence that people have difficulty main-
taining facades over time. The most striking aspect of this
lack of consistency is that the speeches used from day to
day seem, to a human reader, to be essentially the same—
that is, they are based on the same template. The apparent
variation must, therefore, be the accumulation of many
small changes rather than a few large ones.
Our second hypothesis was that influencers would
attempt to differentiate themselves from their competitors
to the greatest extent possible. This is not well supported
by the data: there are differences between the two parties,
and some small differences among candidates but the
greatest difference, across almost all channels, is between
Obama in 2008 and Obama in 2012.
For differentiation based on usage of nouns, there are
differences by party, and also differences based on the
broader environment in which each election took place—
for example, the use of words such as ‘‘crisis’’ in 2008 but
not in 2012, and the overall emphasis on financial and
economic topics in 2008 but not in 2012. For adjective and
verb use, there are also visible differences among candi-
dates and across time; this is much weaker for adverbs.
For both positive and negative words, there is little
evidence to suggest differentiation among candidates, and
very little sign of consistency in areas where it might have
been expected. It is not only difficult for campaigns to
maintain positive language, which is perhaps not altogether
surprising, but also difficult for them to maintain negative
language, which is perhaps more surprising. There is little
support for the conventional wisdom that challengers tend
to be more negative than incumbents but, of course, only
one candidate in this set is an incumbent.
Persona deception is one area where there are clear
differences among candidates, as expected. Maintaining a
persona better than one’s real personality is plausibly dif-
ficult, so it is not surprising that there is considerable short-
term variation in this area. There are also noticeable dif-
ferences in ‘baseline’ ability in this area too. Once again,
we see that Obama maintains similar (although slightly
reduced) levels of persona deception between 2008 and
2012, but uses a different pattern of the underlying words
of the model.
For integrative complexity, we see, as expected, reduc-
tions in the later stages of campaigns, although with a
consistent slight rise in the very late stages which begs an
explanation. It is somewhat surprising that, in a close and
hard-fought election, increases in dialectic differentiation
do not come into play as the result of attempts to draw
distinctions between candidates’ positions.
Overall the greatest difference between any two cam-
paigns from the perspective of language use is that between
the 2008 Obama campaign and the 2012 Obama campaign.
These differences were not in substantive directions—
rather they seemed to be orthogonal to dimensions in which
variation related to substantive ideas appeared. This
remains puzzling, given that his speechwriting teams had
substantial overlap, including especially the pervasive
presence of Jon Favreau as lead speechwriter; and that a
study comparing his language patterns as 2008 candidate
and then sitting president showed little difference (Olson
et al. 2012).
Finally, since Obama was the successful candidate in
both of these election cycles, it may be instructive to
consider his language patterns overall. These are shown in
Table 4.
Table 4 Obama’s usage of the eight channels—the recipe for
success?
Channel Obama’s usage
Nouns Process nouns
Adjectives Category adjectives
Verbs ‘‘Go’’, ‘‘get’’, ‘‘want’’
Adverbs ‘‘Back’’, ‘‘now’’
Positive Midrange
Negative Midrange, highly variable
Persona deception High levels, few first-person
singular pronouns
Integrative complexity Decreasing
Inferring the mental state of influencers 593
123
Author's personal copy
Politicians are good surrogates for more general influ-
encers because they are highly motivated and well funded,
because they must attempt to influence many people in
varied settings, and because they cannot appeal only to
those who are already willing to be influenced. The
approach, and perhaps many of the results, presented here
can be applied to other influence settings such as adver-
tising and terrorism. Recall that our goal is not so much to
understand the process, although we do gain some insight,
but to extract information about the influencers from their
use of the process.
6 Related work
There is a large literature on sentiment analysis (e.g.,
Tetlock 2007; Whitelaw et al. 2005; Kanayama et al. 2004;
Nasukawa and Yi 2003; Godbole et al. 2007) including
attempts to predict election outcomes (Tumasjan et al.
2010). That work addresses the converse of the problem we
address here: how to understand the reaction of an audi-
ence to the effects of an influencer.
There is also a voluminous literature on the interaction
between politics and language, addressing issues such as
how the choice of particular words frames a political dis-
course, how words change with political changes, and how
politicians can be better salespeople. This work is orthog-
onal to the problem we address here, since it is primarily
concerned with improving the process of influencing.
The work closest to ours is work by psychologists who
have investigated the relationship between language use
and mental state, e.g., Chung and Pennebaker’s work
(Chung and Pennebaker 2008; Chung and Pennebaker
2007) on how words reveal psychological profiles and
health; Newman and Pennebaker’s work on deception
(Newman et al. 2003), and Tausczik and Pennebaker’s
recent survey (Tausczik and Pennebaker 2010). Attempts
to identify ideology from language usage, e.g., Koppel
et al. (2009), are also relevant.
References
Alias-i (2008) Lingpipe 4.1.0. http://alias-i.com/lingpipe
Benoit W (2004) Election outcome and topic of political campaign
attacks. South Commun J 69:348–355
Benoit W (2007) Communication in political campaigns. Peter Lang,
New York, p 292
Chung C, Pennebaker J (2008) Revealing dimensions of thinking in
open-ended self-descriptions: an automated meaning extraction
method for natural language. J Res Personal 42:96–132
Chung C, Pennebaker J (2007) The psychological function of function
words. In: Fiedler K (ed) Frontiers in social psychology.
Psychology Press, New York
Conway III L, Conway K, Gornick L, Houck S (in press) Automated
integrative complexity. Political Psychology
Conway III L, Gornick L, Burfeind C, Mandella P, Kuenzli A, Houck
S, Fullerton D (2012) Does complex or simple rhetoric win
elections? An integrative complexity analysis of US presidential
campaigns. Political Psychol 33(5):599–618
Conway III L, Thoemmes F, Allison A, Towgood K, Wagner M,
Davey K, Salcido A, Stovall A, Dodds D, Bongard K, Conway K
(2008) Two ways to be complex and why they matter:
implications for attitude strength and lying. J Personal Soc
Psychol 95(5):1029–1044
Creasor J, Skillicorn D (2012) QTagger extracting word usage from
large corpora. Technical report 2012-587, School of Computing,
Queen’s University, Kingston
Druckman J, Kifer M, Parkin M (2009) Campaign communications
in US congressional elections. Am Political Sci Rev 103(3):
343–366
Godbole N, Srinivasaiah M, Skiena S (2007) Large-scale sentiment
analysis for news and blogs. In: ICWSM, Boulder, Colorado,
USA, 2007
Golub G, van Loan C (1996) Matrix computations, 3rd edn. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Hacker K, Zakahi W, Giles M, McQuitty S (2000) Components of
candidate images: statistical analysis of the issue-persona
dichotomy in the presidential campaign of 1996. Commun
Monogr 67(3):227–238
Hibbing J, Theiss-Morse E (2002) Stealth democracy: Americans’
beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge
Kanayama H, Nasukawa T, Watanabe H (2004) Deeper sentiment
analysis using machine translation technology. In: Proceedings
of the 20th international conference on computational linguistics,
23–27 Aug 2004, Geneva, Switzerland
Keila P, Skillicorn D (2005) Structure in the Enron email dataset.
Comput Math Organ Theory 11(3):183–199
Koppel M, Akiva N, Alshech E, Bar K (2009) Automatically
classifying documents by ideological and organizational affili-
ation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on
intelligence and security informatics (ISI 2009), 8–11 June 2009,
pp 176–178
Loughran T, McDonald B (2011) When is a liability not a liability?
Textual analysis, dictionaries, and 10-Ks. J Finance 66:35–65
Matthiessen C, Halliday M (1997) Systemic functional grammar: a
first step into the theory. Macquarie University working paper,
Macquarie Park, Australia
Nasukawa T, Yi J (2003) Sentiment analysis: capturing favorability
using natural language processing. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
international conference on knowledge capture, 23–25 Oct 2003,
Sanibel Island, FL, USA, pp 70–77
Newman M, Pennebaker J, Berry D, Richards J (2003) Lying words:
predicting deception from linguistic style. Personal Soc Psychol
Bull 29:665–675
Olson J, Ouyang Y, Poe J, Trantham A, Waterman R (2012) The
teleprompter presidency: comparing Obama’s campaign and
governing rhetoric. Soc Sci Quart 93(5):1404–1423
Stevens D (2012) Tone versus information: explaining the impact of
negative political advertising. J Political Market 11(4):322–352
Suedfeld P, Tetlock P, Streufert S (1992) Conceptual/integrative
complexity. In: Motivation and personality: handbook of
thematic content analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, pp 393–400
Tausczik Y, Pennebaker J (2010) The psychological meaning of
words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J Lang
Soc Psychol 29:24–54
Tetlock P (2007) Giving content to investor sentiment: the role of
media in the stock market. J Finance 62:1139–1168
594 D. B. Skillicorn, C. Leuprecht
123
Author's personal copy
Tumasjan A, Sprenger T, Sandner P, Welpe I (2010) Predicting
elections with Twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political
sentiment. In: Proceedings of the 4th international AAAI
conference on weblogs and social media, 23–26 May 2010,
Washington DC, USA, pp 178–185
Whitelaw C, Argamon S (2004) Systemic functional features in
stylistic text classification. In: Proceedings of AAAI fall
symposim on style and meaning in language, art, music, and
design, Washington DC, USA
Whitelaw C, Garg N, Argamon S (2005) Using appraisal taxonomies
for sentiment analysis. In: Second Midwest Computational
Linguistic Colloquium (MCLC 2005), 14–15 May 2005, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Inferring the mental state of influencers 595
123
Author's personal copy