Language in Speeches vs. Interviews, Part 3: John McCain

by Molly Ireland

Using LIWC, our text analysis program (www.liwc.net), I analyzed John McCain’s language in interviews and speeches. In general, McCain comes across as loveable, somewhat nostalgic, and more approachable than other politicians we’ve analyzed. Here are the main findings:

1) The past. In interviews he talks about the past more than twice as much as he does in speeches. His speech writers have McCain referring to the past at half the normal rate.

2) First person singular. He uses “I” at higher rates than either Obama or Biden in both speeches and interviews. Using “I” personalizes candidates, and makes them seem slightly lower status and more approachable. Our current president used more “I” than both Gore and Kerry when he ran.

3) Inclusiveness and positive emotions. McCain uses more inclusive and positive emotion words in interviews and speeches than either Obama or Biden. He uses much more exclusive language in interviews than speeches though, so it’s possible that the high inclusiveness and low exclusiveness of his speeches is, at least in part, political spin.

Here is a summary of the major differences between McCain in speeches and interviews (word categories in each column are words that were used significantly more in that context):

Interviews: more nostalgic, exclusive first person singular (I, me) second person singular (you, your) third person singular (he, she) indefinite pronouns (this, it) verb (run, seeing) auxiliary verb (am, is) past (was, changed) present (is, changing) adverb (highly, often) conjunctions (but, or) negate (no, never) numbers (trillion, quarter) swear (damn, shit) humans (people, men) insight (realize, conclude) tentative (maybe, assume) exclusion (without, except) see (look, watched) hear (heard, loud)

Speeches: more inclusive, emotional words with 6+ letters first person plural (we, our) articles (a, the) future (will, must) prepositions (inside, without) family (son, wife) friend (buddy, pal) positive emotions (joy, love) anxiety (worry, fear) anger (hate, fight) sadness (grieve, lonely) cause (because, consequence) inhibition (maybe, careful) feel (touch, rough) body (skin, heart) health (medical, illness) space (north, far) work (office, overtime) achievement (defeat, power)

Living in the past and present, focusing less on the future. McCain talks much more about the past (2.9% vs. 1.4%) and present (10.6% vs .6.6%), and much less about the future (1.3% vs. 1.8%) in interviews than he does in speeches. In interviews he also talks about the present about 3% less than other people on average. Not surprising, perhaps, for anyone who saw the presidential debates last Friday, where McCain seemed more focused on his mythic past than the uncertain future. It is, however, inconsistent with his recent speeches. While McCain’s speechwriters appear to be training McCain to talk like a man half his age, when he’s less censored he talks like what he is – a man with a past.

In interviews much more than in speeches, McCain tends to vacillate between talking exclusively about past and exclusively about the present, as though trying to rein in his nostalgia. For example, past tense verbs make up 8.8% of the total words in the excerpt below (again, 4% is normal), where McCain talks about how Palin compares to Obama and Biden. From a September 3rd interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC:

McCain: She’s had positions of responsibility and authority. In all due respect to my friend, Joe Biden, he’s never been executive of anything nor…
Gibson: Neither have you.
McCain: … has Sen. Obama. Oh, I’ve commanded the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy, with huge responsibilities, many — it’s — it was a leadership job, but it was also a huge responsibility.

Along the same lines, in interviews he refers to the future significantly less often (1.3%) than he does in speeches (1.8%). His use of the future tense is nearly normal in interviews while, as with the Democratic candidates, in speeches he talks about the future at almost twice the normal rate. All political speech writers, it seems, think that talking a lot about the future is a good idea. With older candidates, like Biden and McCain, they also seem think it’s best to ignore their candidate’s long histories. On the other hand, Obama, age 47, actually uses past tense verbs in interviews and speeches more than both McCain and Biden.

“I” and “we”: compared with Palin, a social maverick. McCain’s transition from speeches to interviews shows that he is, unsurprisingly perhaps, more comfortable and socially skilled in interviews than his running mate. Whereas Palin used the royal “we” more often in the less formal interview setting, McCain sounds more natural and approachable when he’s in interview mode: in interviews he used “I” more than twice as often as he did in speeches (5.1% vs. 2.5%), and “we” much less (2.5% vs. 3.5% in speeches). McCain also uses “I” more in both speeches and interviews than Obama and Biden. McCain’s still not exactly the senator next door. In interviews he used “I” only about twice as often as “we.” People normally use I-words six times as often as “we.”

In speeches McCain used more positive emotion words than either Biden or Obama, although all three were more emotional in speeches than in interviews. His Republican National Convention speech was a good example of his tendency to use sentimental language, focus on the past, and use “I” more than other candidates (first person singular in bold):

When I was growing up, my father was often at sea, and the job of raising my brother, sister and me would fall to my mother alone. … I wouldn’t be here tonight but for the strength of her character. … My heartfelt thanks to all of you, who helped me win this nomination, and stood by me when the odds were long. I won’t let you down.

The I-words in this excerpt trigger his audience’s empathy and, more importantly perhaps, make his story feel true. Using I-words more often is associated with truthfulness in deception research. This is pretty effective language, but McCain is even warmer in interviews than in speeches – a pattern we’ve found for every presidential and vice presidential candidate so far except Sarah Palin.

Inclusion and exclusion: ignoring divisions, possibly dishonestly. McCain and Palin’s use of inclusive words are very similar. On average, in speeches and interviews both use inclusive words more than the average person (about 6.4% for both; 3.9% is average). This could be an attempt to distance himself from perceived Washington elitism and his party’s exclusive reputation. In the following excerpt from McCain’s Republican National Convention speech, inclusive words dominate (inclusive in bold):

We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. …We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. … Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.

McCain is talking about moving away from the old (and current) Republican garde, but he’s doing it using very inclusive language. Avoidance of exclusive words and overuse of inclusive is typical of McCain’s speeches, and may represent conservative speech writers’ attempts to denounce huge factions of both Democratic and Republican parties without alienating either side.

Exclusive words aren’t only markers of exclusion, however. They also signify cognitive complexity, which sometimes indicates that a person is speaking more truthfully. It’s possible that talking about reforming the corrupt Republican party while simultaneously thanking them for their support isn’t exactly honest. McCain becomes more exclusive – i.e., closer to normal and presumably more natural and honest – when he goes off script (2.7% vs. 1.9% in speeches).

Summary. McCain, unlike Palin, seizes an opportunity to appeal to the common man by talking almost like a normal person when he goes off script in one-on-one interviews. He is more personable across the board than other candidates we’ve seen, using more “I” than others even in low “I” territory like speeches. He also uses verbs more like an average person in interviews, using the past tense more than twice as often as he does in his unusually future-focused speeches. McCain is much more emotional, both positively and negatively, on stage than off, and he uses more positive emotion words in speeches than either Obama or Biden. Stylistically, McCain comes across – especially in interviews, but in speeches too – as nostalgic, warm, and relatively approachable. We’ll see if that’s what voters look for in a president in just a few weeks.

Presidential Debate I: The Word Tally

The first Obama-McCain debate on the night of September 26 was the first opportunity to see the two candidates talk about the same issues in the same venue.  Using the LIWC text analysis program, the differences in percentage of word categories broke down this way:

Category	Examples	McCain	Obama		Interpretation
Word count		7115	7612	*	O talks more
Words per sentence		16.86	18.08	*	O longer sentences
Big words (over 6 letters)		19.75	18.29	*	M bigger words
Personal pronouns		9.43	9.66
1st person singular	I, me, my	3.49	2.26	*	M more personal
1st person plural	We, our	3.15	4.62	*	O more formal, distant
2nd person	You, yours	0.86	1.20	*	O more aggressive, pointed
3rd person singular	He, she, her	0.86	0.53
3rd person plural	They, them	1.08	1.05
Indefinite pronouns	It, those	6.79	6.96
Articles	A, the	7.56	6.35	*	M more concrete, less abstract
Verbs	Walk, went	16.01	17.45	*	O more dynamic
Auxiliary verbs	Is, have	10.23	11.36	*
Past tense	Was, gave	4.10	3.74
Present tense	Am, is	9.80	12.09	*	O more “here and now”
Future tense	will	1.19	0.66
Common adverbs	Very, really	3.71	4.94	*	O more “flowery”
Prepositions	To, for, of	13.83	13.33
Conjunctions	And, or, whereas	7.70	6.82
Negations	No, not, never	1.53	2.27	*	O censoring himself, less impulsive
Quantifiers	Much, few	2.21	2.56
Numbers	Six, 12	1.45	1.94
Social references	Friend, we, talk	9.49	10.81	*	O more social awareness
Overall emotion words	Happy, hurt, kill	5.72	5.03
Positive emotions	Happy, nice	3.29	2.89	*	M more positive
Negative emotions	Sad, nasty, bad	2.40	2.12	*	M more negative
Anxiety, fear	Worry, scared	0.18	0.33
Anger	Angry, hate	1.08	0.87
Sadness	Depressed, cry	0.62	0.25
Cognitive mechanisms	Think, should	19.06	19.63
Insight	Realize, know	1.98	2.10
Causal	Because, reason	1.57	2.39	*	O more causal analyses
DIscrepancy	Would,could	1.69	1.52
Tentative	Maybe, perhaps	1.55	1.79
Certainty	Absolute, certainly	1.35	1.58
Inhibition	Blocked, stop	1.05	0.76
Inclusive words	With, and	8.38	7.36	*
Exclusive words	Except, but	2.09	2.86	*	O more cognitively complex
Relativity	Times, going, over	12.21	12.99
Motion	Went, fly	1.80	2.21
Space	Area, under	5.97	6.53
Time	Hour, clock	3.89	4.23
Content Categories
Work	Job, paycheck	3.08	2.93
Achievement	Try, succeed	3.39	2.42	*	M higher in achievement motives
Leisure	Games, tv	0.20	0.25
Home	Garage, yard	0.30	0.30
Money	Cash, debt	1.56	2.05
Religion	God, church	0.18	0.07
Death	Dead, cemetery	0.31	0.25

The findings are generally in line with the ways the two candidates have debated in the past. McCain is a bit more emotional, impulsive,  and personal than Obama.  On the other hand, Obama is more abstract and cognitively complex.

JWP

Language in Speeches vs. Interviews, Part 2: Barack Obama

by Molly Ireland

Obama and Biden transition from speeches to interviews in very similar ways: in speeches, both use the chilly, distant “we” more often and “I” less, and both are unusually focused on the future, talking about the past and present in speeches much less than other people do on average. Both candidates’ language is much more normal and approachable in interviews. Theoretically, talking less like average people distances candidates from their constituents and makes voters less likely to empathize, be inspired, and vote accordingly.

Here is a breakdown of how Obama’s language differs in speeches and interviews (word categories in each column are words that were used significantly more in that context):

Interviews: approachable I (I, me, my) verbs (ran, working) auxiliary verbs (be, am, is) past tense (saw, ran) present tense (working, seeing) negations (no, never, not) insight (realize, solve) discrepancy (would, could) tentative (might, probably) exclusive (except, without) hear (heard, seeing) feel (pressure, touch) see (look, saw) religion (god, Bible, pray)

Speeches: inspiring, but distant we (our, us, we) conjunctions (but, because) positive emotion (smile, laugh) anger (fight, abuse) sadness (grieve, tragedy) inhibition (ban, stop) inclusive (both, and) body and health (heart, doctor) time (old, now, future) work (office, overtime) achieve (conquer, defeat) leisure (party, play) death (fatality, casualty) family (wife, son)

Sensory words but, lately, self-focused. Like Biden, Obama uses more seeing and hearing words in interviews than in speeches. As with Biden, this tends to humanize his interviews, and it helps embody Obama – rather than disembody him, as his somewhat colder speeches tend to do. George Lakoff has recently commented on Obama’s physical presence as a main selling point during this election. He is graceful, relatively young, and in robust health – all things that are especially salient given the concern surrounding McCain, the oldest non-incumbent presidential candidate in history. In comparison, Obama looks like an athlete. Whenever he uses sensory words this tends to emphasize the fact that he’s a real, physical person. This is a good thing, especially given that Democratic candidates have had trouble acting like human beings in the last two elections.

As a qualitative side-note, lately the way Obama uses sensory words is very different from Joe Biden’s usage. While Biden tends to talk about what he’s heard or seen, Obama in recent interviews talks more about people looking at his record and what people will see when he’s president. He’s also been using “look” to direct his interviewer’s attention several times per interview. You can see both of these changes in this May 12, 2008 interview with Jeffry Goldberg of The Atlantic:

The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. …You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.

And later in the same interview, when asked about Hamas:

Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy.

Talking about others seeing him and telling interviewers to “look” can come across as laid-back and conversational, but Obama’s running mate’s use of sensory words was probably more effective in terms of triggering listeners’ empathy or emphasizing his physical, human presence. He also uses sensory words in metaphors less than Biden, which may contribute to his reputation among some as cold or elitist.

On the other hand, in older interviews he’s more likely to talk about what he sees, what others see, and what we’ll see in the future. This shift could be the effect of the enormous public scrutiny he has been under since the tide started to turn mid-Democratic primary. If everybody is looking at you, it’s hard not to be a little obsessed with what they do and don’t see. Biden, on the other hand, has the dubious luxury of minimal media attention, especially since Palin has emerged onto the scene, which could explain his more congenial sensory word use.

God and emotion, past and present. Unlike Biden, Obama mentions religion more than twice as often in interviews than in speeches, which is more than three times as much as average people (.76% in interviews, .32% in speeches; about .20% is average). This is probably partly due to the fact that two of the ten interviews focused heavily on religious issues. It’s also probably caused by Obama’s attempts to correct specious Republican claims that he and his family have ties to Muslim fundamentalists.

Obama, like Biden, uses past and present tense at normal rates in interviews, whereas he uses less of both in speeches. The present tense differences are especially striking, 10.9% in interviews vs. 7.7% in speeches (14% is the average for conversations). Assuming, as I’ve been doing, that people like politicians who sound like them, this is good news for his interview performance. In speeches, however, his tendency to focus on the future is probably less appropriate now, in the grittier battleground of the next few weeks, than it was when he was trying to inspire disillusioned Democrats before and during the primaries.

Obama and Biden both use negative emotions more in speeches than in interviews, although Biden talks about anxiety more in speeches, while Obama uses more angry words. Both use more words related to sadness in speeches. Like with Biden, this is probably a good sign. A speaker should, sometimes, pump his fists and emotionally electrify his audience. In a debate with a foreign leader or in an interview, reining in your emotions is probably a wiser choice.

Pronouns: “I” vs. “we.” In transitioning from speech to interview mode, Obama behaves much like his older running mate. In interviews, he uses much more “I” (4.5% vs. 2% in speeches) and significantly less “we” (2.5% vs. 3.5% in speeches). This shift reflects what people who have watched Obama in speeches and interviews already know: On stage he’s majestic and inspiring, but not exactly approachable. McCain’s Paris Hilton ad seemed like dirty, irrelevant pool to most people, but it had a kernel of truth. Obama is pretty famous. And, like a lot of famous people, he sometimes seems more like an archetype rather than a flesh and blood leader.

Obama is a great orator, but to borrow a litmus test used by almost every Bush supporter in the fall of 2000 and 2004, it’s unclear whether you’d want to have a beer with him. It’s now clear that drawling drinking buddies aren’t always ideal leaders. But, as Drew Westen points out in The Political Brain, the idea that you should vote for somebody based on gut-level identification with them isn’t as absurd as it might seem at first to many liberals. Westen urges Democrats to stop talking about the irrationality of emotional voting and start using emotions to their advantage. From Obama’s Berlin speech, here is an example of a “we”-strewn excerpt that, although eloquent, isn’t as emotionally resonant as it could be (first person plural in bold):

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. …This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.

Averting disaster and banding together for the sake of the future are good things that Republicans and Democrats are equally inspired by. But the hopeful future Obama speaks so eloquently about seems less attainable when Obama talks about what “we” will do in the future rather than how he personally plans to save us and our children right now. We the American people are largely unconvinced that we personally can save the world, and when Obama uses almost exclusively future tense verbs and first person plural, the odds of anybody – him or us – saving it seems even less likely.

Of course, in terms of oratory power Obama does fare far better in speeches than Biden. This is probably due at least in part to the fact that in speeches Obama tends to use about twice as many (2% vs. 1.1%) personalizing, humanizing I-words as Biden. Obama still uses less “I” than both McCain (who uses 2.5% in speeches) and Palin (4% in both speeches and interviews), which could be a key difference in the upcoming weeks.

Biden and Obama’s chances, based on their language. Right now the Democratic candidates look good in interviews, but are less personable on the stage. Most of their potential voters are people of low or moderate status who use “I” about 6% of the time and “we” rarely, and who talk about the past and present much more than the future. If Democrats want working and middle class Americans’ vote, they might try talking like them. This isn’t about linguistic pandering. There is no question that when they go off script Obama and Biden are facile communicators who talk like normal Americans. They’re more cognitively complex and insightful than average, but they’re still everymen. Their interviews – with less “we,” more “I” and “she/he,” and more past and present tense verbs – are linguistic proof of that. The only question is whether or not they will be able to break from their party’s weirdly counterfactual “voters love the royal ‘we’” dictum and learn to act like human beings on stage. It would be tragic for their party if, like Al Gore, they learned to relax and become likeable a few months too late.

Language in Speeches vs. Interviews: Joe Biden

by Molly Ireland

Joe Biden is notorious for embarrassing interview blunders. He can be a little too uncensored and tends to go off-message when he’s not reading from a script. Our analysis shows, however, that Biden’s speech writers might want to take a few cues from his interview persona. In interviews the Democratic vice presidential candidate is more human and less severe than he is in speeches. When talking as himself, Biden talks like a normal person, using pronouns and verbs at rates that closely match the speaking styles of the average people we’ve recorded over the years. Consequently, in interviews Biden is more approachable, more socially connected, and also more cautious and insightful – in other words, he sounds like a human leader rather than a stuffed suit. The good news about Biden’s interview language is, unfortunately, bad news for his speeches. In speeches Biden comes across as stern and slightly awkward. Whether a candidate appears warm and human or cold and preprogrammed could decide the election. It has in the past.

Here’s a quick summary of the significant differences between Biden in interviews and speeches:

Interviews: personable, normal first person singular (I, me, my) second person singular (you, your) third person singluar (she, him) past tense (saw, thought) present tense (looking, think) verbs (ran, voting) prepositions (within, over) conjunctions (and, but) negations (not, never) visual (see, look) hearing (heard, silent) insight (realize, solve) tentative (probably, depends) exclusive (except, without)

Speeches: cold, formal words with 6+ letters we (our, us, we’ll) future tense (should, will) positive emotion (happy, joy) anxiety, sadness (worry, grieve) inhibition (obstacle, ban, stop) inclusive (both, and) time (ago, begin, November) death (bereave, genocide) body (heart, sweat) health (doctor, disease) home (backyard, address) leisure (party, play) religion (god, pray)

Sensory words: “looking forward,” “her silence…was deafening.” Biden uses more sensory words in interviews. In conversations with journalists, he’s more likely to say things like “I see” and “I hear” (no difference in feeling words). In this example from his September 7^th interview with Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press, Biden talks about listening to news about Palin:

I mean, I hear this talk about, you know, is she going to pick up Hillary voters? Well, I–so far I haven’t heard one single policy position, one single position that she has in common with Hillary.

And from the same interview, in response to Brokaw’s question about whether Democrats should be afraid of Palin:

I mean, I think it’s–well, I don’t–look, that’s for voters to decide. … And as I look down the road, that’s how I’ve always debated whoever I’ve debated, including the really tough women I work with, smart women, in the Senate. So I, I, I really don’t view this any differently. I may be surprised here down the road. But, but, you know, I’m just looking forward to debating her. I mean, why–look, she had a great speech. But what was–her silence on the issues was deafening.

Here Biden is using “look,” “see,” and “hear” in ways that would be common in a normal conversation. He also talks about deafening silence and looking down the road, using sensory metaphors so that his points sink in immediately and make a more visceral impact. Using sensory words figuratively and literally reminds us that Biden is a person – a seeing, hearing person – rather than a disembodied head floating above a lectern.

God and emotion: praying for the troops, but without the melodrama. Biden’s interview language is also more natural in that he talks less about God and death less and uses fewer emotional words than in speeches. In the last several years Republican politicians have made a point of talking about “godless liberals” to motivate fundamentalist Christian voters. Consequently, Democrats have had to talk about God a lot just in order to convince voters that they aren’t in fact heralds of the Beast. The fact that Biden talks about religion a lot more in scripted speeches than in off-script interviews may be caused by this trend. His notoriously uncensored interview language is probably closer to his normal way of speaking. Importantly, in interviews Biden talks about religion almost exactly as much as an average person in conversation: rarely (.3% for Biden, .2% for average people). Religion is private and, in face-to-face talks, Biden usually keeps it that way.

In speeches, Biden used 3.5% negative emotion words, compared with 2.5%, the average for people in conversations. Speeches are meant to be stirring, and it makes sense that speeches given by candidates who oppose the current administration would contain more negative emotions than would be normal in any other setting. So while it’s not necessarily a bad thing that Biden uses more negative emotions in speeches, it is a good sign for the Democratic party he’s less melodramatic and more easygoing in conversation with interviewers. Comfortable, emotionally controlled interviewees make better diplomats than hot-headed gunslingers.

Pronouns, verb tense, and cognitive complexity: “I know,” “because I think.” You can also see in the examples above that he’s using less “we,” and more “I” and third person singular (she, he). He still uses “I” at a pretty low rate in interviews, on average — 4.8% in his most recent interview, with Brokaw, and 2.8% on average over the last three years. But Biden is no Woody Allen – his “I” use is certainly not off the charts. While high “I” – above about 8% — is correlated with neuroticism and maladaptively high self-focus, Biden’s “I” use in the Brokaw interview and on average is significantly less than most people. Low “I” use in conversation usually signifies that the speaker is of higher status. Rather than talking about himself, he is thinking about others, what they should do, how their actions will affect the US, etc. His relatively low “I” use here probably reflects the fact that he is, as a vice presidential nominee with a long, venerable resume, objectively a high status politician.

Also, when Biden uses “I” it’s very rarely in self-critical or self-obsessive ways. In interviews Joe Biden says “I think,” “I know”, and “I mean” frequently. In fact, in speeches and interviews, Biden uses tentative (probably, depends) and insight words (think, know) as well as prepositions (about, within) and conjunctions (but, or) more often in interviews than in speeches. All of these word categories signify greater cognitive complexity. Tentative words particularly are signs of carefulness and restraint – good qualities for a wartime leader to have.

His higher use of “she/he” (1.6% vs .7% in speeches) and “you” (1.6% vs .5%) also shows that he is somewhat socially oriented, and that he is thinking and talking about others almost as much as he is about himself. Again, his “she/he” use is still only about average – he pays attention to the people around him, but he’s not a gossip.

Verbs, past and present. Biden uses present tense and past tense more in interviews than in speeches, although he still uses both tenses less than we normally see in average conversations. His speech writers—and the Republican nominees’ writers, by the way—seem to be trying to spread their message of hope and progress by talking about the future more often than is normal, and the past abnormally infrequently. Usually people use past tense about four times as often as present tense (4% vs. 1%); in Biden’s speeches, he references the future about as often as the past (1.6% past vs. 1.4% future).

Talking more about the future and less about the past in speeches may backfire, making Democrats seem more like starry-eyed future gazers rather than battle-ready realists. In the last few months and during the elections of 2000 and 2004, analysts on both sides of the political divide complained that Democrats failed to seize a multitude of opportunities to capitalize on Republicans’ vulnerabilities – including blatant hypocrisy (male anti-gay rights activists seducing young men online) and campaign misconduct (calling voters at inopportune times with obnoxious messages supposedly from Democratic candidates). The sub-normal levels of past tense verbs in both Biden’s and Obama’s speeches indicate that the party so far appears to be set on the same naïve path.
When Biden is uncensored, on the other hand, he basically gets it right. His increased use of verbs — particularly his much more normal use of past and future tense verbs — makes Biden seem more like a man of action and an everyman in interviews than in speeches.

Summary. To sum up, in interviews Biden comes across as a high status, cognitively complex, but eminently approachable everyman. In terms of pronouns, Biden’s language is high status (lower than average “I”) but personable (higher “I” and lower “we” than in speeches, higher “she/he” and “you” use). He also seems to be an insightful, careful leader, as you can see by his increased use of insight words and other measures of cognitive complexity. Biden also has a tendency to pay much more attention to the present and past in interviews than in speeches. In this respect his language is much closer to a normal person in conversation than most future-gazing politicians. He is also much more natural when talking about religion and emotions in interviews compared with speeches. In speeches he uses far more negative emotion words and religious words than the average person, while in interviews his language in these categories is indistinguishable from the common man he wants to represent.

Convention Language: Democrats and Republicans

Taken together, the speeches at the two conventions provide a relatively coherent picture of the images the two parties are trying to convey.  It’s likely that most of the speeches were written by people other than the presenters.  And, even if the presenters had a strong hand in their speech, they were undoubtedly heavily vetted by party insiders.

Using our computer text analysis program LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, see www.liwc.net), we compared the function words of 15 Democratic and 14 Republican speeches that took place during prime time.  In many ways, the language was fairly similar.  However, a couple of striking differences emerged:

Social and Emotional Connections.  Republicans came across as more socially and emotionally connected to their audience than the Democrats.  There was a trend for Republicans to use 1st person singular, 2nd person, and 3rd person pronouns more than Democrats.  More striking was the consistently higher use of 1st person plural (we, us, our) among the Democrats.  As a general rule, politicians who use “we” at high rates are using the Royal We which signals a psychological distancing between speakers and audience.  This follows the foolish advice that Democratic consultants have been giving their candidates since Kerry and Gore.  They falsely assume that the use of “we” conveys a sense of warmth and closeness.  Both Gore and Kerry used “we” at far higher rates than Bush.  Bush used “I” at much higher rates than virtually all of his competitors.  Although Obama is using “we” at the same rate as McCain, McCain is using “I” much more frequently (in their acceptance speeches, 5.9% of McCain’s words and 2.5% of Obama’s words were “I”).

Past and Future, Home and God, Hearing and Feeling.  Whereas Republicans were more likely to use past tense verbs (3.0 vs 2.3 percent), there was a trend for Democrats to refer more to the future (1.3 vs 1.0 percent).  While Democrats talked more about home (.82 vs .47 percent), Republicans referred to God and religion (.57 vs .33 percent).  Finally, Republicans used “hearing” words (I hear what you say), Democrats used more feeling words (I feel what you say).

Obama and Palin, McCain and Biden.  My friend Leland Beatty, a Democratic consultant, LIWCed the language of the President and VP acceptance speeches.  He discovered that Obama and Palin were very similar in their language whereas McCain and Biden were more similar to each other than to their respective running mates.  Leland pointed out that this seems to reflect an age difference among the candidates rather than a party difference.

There IS a huge age difference among the candidates in terms of the ways they use words. But the differences are quite different from what we would expect.  The youngsters, Obama and Palin, used words like old people.  They overused 1st person plural, big words, low emotion word rates, high levels of articles.  McCain and Biden, however, talk like teenagers.  Lots of 1st person singular, high rates of emotions, high use of verbs, especially auxiliary verbs.

This is perhaps what tightly scripted conventions are all about.  The men talk like women and the women talk like men.  The young sound old and the old sound young.

It’s inspirational

–James W. Pennebaker

Obama vs. Clinton: Who is More Syntactically-Complex?

Words in language need each other – they even depend on each other! For example, in the sentence We do everything we can, the noun, everything depends on the verb, do. These are called dependencies. Dependencies in language are a signature of more complex language. If a speaker uses a greater number of dependencies, then their language is more complex. Dependencies are a way to syntactically analyze language.

In this blog, we ask Who is more complex? Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? click here to read it 

By VR and the IIS WordWatchers

Spitzer’s Resignation Remarks: Hints of depression and need for achievement

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s 376 word resignation speech was linguistically simple and and personal.  Overall, 10.6% of his words were 1st person singular (I, me, my) which puts him in the depression range.  Although on the borderline of depression, he used a high number of positive emotion words (4.8%) and relatively few negative emotion words (1.6%) — almost all of which were part of our sadness/depression category (1.3%).

He clearly is someone with a very high need for achievement (4.0% of he words are from this category — almost a record).  This dimension of his personality can be seen in his phrases such as “my private failings with my wife…”  “…I tried to stand for…”  “I go forward with the belief…”  “…which I believe can build a future of hope and opportunity…”

As a side note, many people in the midst of a scandal or emotional upheavals avoid 1st person singular, as in “mistakes were made.”  This is particularly true in the first days after it has become public.

JWP

Winning and Losing: Clinton=stable; Obama=volatile

After each primary election, the candidates all appear on television and rally their troups.  Particularly revealing is how each person changes his or her language after winning versus losing.  There is some evidence in social psychology and business that if people succeed they tend to take credit. When they fail, they deflect the experience.  “I win; we lost.”

This pattern probably occurs as an ego-defensive maneuver. Because losing can be so painful, we do whatever we can to avoid misery and pain by turning our attention away from ourselves.

After the March 5 primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont, Clinton and McCain emerged as striking winners with Obama losing.  Since the early January Iowa caucus, all three of these candidates have experienced both stunning wins and losses. An analysis of their pronoun usage can help to tell us how they are psychologically steady versus, hmmm, less steady.

Check out the graph below.  The blue bars refer to word use in post-election comments after winning.  The red bars refer to language use after losing.  You will note that Hillary Clinton is breathtakingly stable. She uses both “I” words and “we” words at virtually identical rates whether she has just won or just lost.  McCain, too, is quite stable with “I” words whether winning or losing.  He does show an increase in “we” words after losing compared with winning.

But look at Obama.  After losing, he drops in his “I” words to almost zero. At the same time, he switches to exceptionally high rates of “we” words after losing.  This pattern was virtually identical in Obama after losing March 5th as it was after he lost in New Hampshire.

What does all of this mean?  One interpretation is that Obama is more emotionally labile than either Clinton or McCain.  An alternative interpretation is that Obama is a normal human being who responds the ways most of us would to such large wins and losses. More striking is how psychologically resilient both McCain and Clinton appear to be.

As a final note, these analyses are based on canned speeches by the candidates. It’s not clear if their words reflect their personalities or their election team’s psychological states.

JWP

What do you say … what do you mean?

What do you say … what do you mean? 

What do the candidates say most?

Actually, what the candidates say most can be a little boring … that is, most of the words that they use (like all of use) are little words like the, and, of, a, and in.

To be sure, we can learn A LOT about people from those words … and many blogs here show that point very well.

But maybe we’d still like to have a better idea of what candidates say most that is a little more than and and the and of?

 

One way to see more of what candidates are saying is to use an approach called clustering …

 

If you ‘d like to see how that works – and what the results are … then click the link below.

what-do-you-say-what-do-you-mean.pdf

from PMM and the IIS_WordWatchers

The We-have-to/You-have-to challenge

The We/You have challenge  

If you saw my recent post (below) on you-have-to and we-have-to then you’ll know that I’m very interested in why Obama and Clinton use these phrases with such different frequencies and how Obama and Clinton use these phrases in the first place.

From some recent research that we’ve conducted, we’ve learned that the majority of people only need three words in order to be able to tell the genre of a text. That is, if I give you three words then you’ll be able to tell me whether that text is from a science book, a history book, or whether it is from a story. Let’s try extending that approach to Obama-speak and Clinton-speak …

Below you’ll see a table of parts of sentences used by Clinton and Obama. Each entry features either you-have-to or we-have-to PLUS the next three words in the sentence. All you have to do is write down whether you think those 6 words (i.e., you have to/we have to + three words) came from Obama or from Clinton.

Write O if you think Obama.

Write C if you think Clinton.

(The answers come later …)

  

1		we have to be ready for
2		we have to initiate the kind
3		you have to look at this
4		we have to say to president
5		we have to be very conscious
6		we have to treat each other
7		you have to be able to
8		we have to have our parents
9		we have to untangle ourselves and
10		we have to be very, very
11		we have to do is create
12		we have to have civilian options
13		we have to make early on.
14		we have to make sure that

    

OK … check your answers here …

  

1	C	we have to be ready for
2	O	we have to initiate the kind
3	C	you have to look at this
4	C	we have to say to president
5	C	we have to be very conscious
6	O	we have to treat each other
7	C	you have to be able to
8	O	we have to have our parents
9	C	we have to untangle ourselves and
10	C	we have to be very, very
11	O	we have to do is create
12	O	we have to have civilian options
13	O	we have to make early on.
14	O	we have to make sure that

  

How did you do?

Let us know what you’re score was by using the comment box … and maybe let us know what led you to your decisions …

  

And you can see a much larger chunk of where those 6 words came from here …

  

Clinton

You have to

toward the united states.  but you can’t just — you have to be very careful about how

you know, it’s different parts of the country. so you have to look at this across the board

ublican colleague from south carolina.  you know, you have to look to find common

so, i mean, you’ve got to stay on top of this and you have to manage it all the time. that

ve and budget proposals for the congress, because you have to move quickly in order to

nd, clearly, one of the principal lessons is that you have to have a very strong

g the tone, bringing people together. but i think you have to be able to manage and run

a that is actually going to make a difference. do you have to stand up to the lobbyists?

u determine what will happen in the future? well, you have to look to the record, you

t of our campaign — this is about the two of us. you have to, as voters, determine who

age no matter who you are or where you came from. you have to raise the money. you

recognize what both john edwards and i did, that you have to bite this bullet. you have

We have to

and many others barely hanging on above. so what we have to do tonight is to have a

costs.  we have a lot of very intense challenges we have to meet right now.  so what i

i find that absolutely unacceptable, and i think we have to do everything we can to

it’s a longer-term problem with social security. we have to deal with both.  part of that

much about the same things. from my perspective, we have to lower cost, improve

much about the same things. from my perspective, we have to lower cost, improve

the values of america. it is a serious question. we have to fix this broken system. but

to the democratic party and to america.  but now we have to decide who would be the

administration.  so where we are today means that we have to say to president

also meant at that same time, because, obviously, we have to be responsible, we have to

d to bombing and so much loss of life and injury. we have to think about what we’re

dent is going to propose, because what happens is we have to have a coalition. and i

e device that could cause such havoc.  so i think we have to be very, very clear. you

e. they have totally abdicated that.  but i think we have to get broader than that. we’ve

ficult process — there are no good options here. we have to untangle ourselves and

here without documentation.” so, i know that what we have to do is to bring our

icans today and what they’re talking to me about. we have to stimulate the economy. i

ition we find ourselves in today. but i think now we have to look at how we go forward.

ng place. they were not taken out at the time. so we have to be very conscious of all the

oward clean, renewable green energy. i think that we have to, you know, break the lock

points. first of all, i have said in my plan that we have to regulate the health insurance

redict what the consequences will be, and i think we have to be ready for whatever they

urrent energy profile in this country. that’s why we have to act. and we will act in a way

ving a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. we have to try to prevent that at all

ving a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. we have to try to prevent that at all

we have to get realistic and practical about this.

y by making sure the economy works for everybody. we have to lift up the idea of good

Obama

You have to

every year to help you go to college. in return, you have to engage in some form of

greenhouse gases by a particular level. now what you have to do is you have to

n is not a passive activity; it is something that you have to be actively engaged in.  if we

We have to

folks quite some time. what i do believe is that we have to describe a new foreign

have the opportunity to be successful there. but we have to finish the job.

tv set, we’ve got to put away the video game and we have to tell our children that

would do is i would cap those subsidies. i think we have to have a structure that

, if we’re going to bring about real change, then we have to bring in the american

.   i think that folks made a terrific point that we have to stand for human rights and that

ald reagan’s policies. but what i did say is that we have to be thinking in the same

avel elsewhere. and that’s something that i think we have to address. there are important

e sometimes this doesn’t get talked enough about. we have to have our parents take

es being foreclosed upon.  one of the things that we have to do is we have to release

hey’re not observing worker safety laws.  so what we have to do is create a

hy this was a mistake, and that’s why not only do we have to bring the war in iraq to a

i think it is the right thing to do.  and i think we have to show leadership on the issue.

inton has a different approach. she believes that we have to force people who don’t have

isagreement with john and i is john believes that we have to have mandatory insurance

k, i have already said, i support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and

know, create a different vision of how, you know, we have to treat each other. and i

le at enormous cost to the american people.  what we have to do is to begin a phased

ly factored in the sacred obligation that i think we have to make sure that every single

n see what the choices are.  because part of what we have to do is enlist the american

nation of immigrants. now, there is no doubt that we have to get control of our borders.

nia and all across the country. and we agree that we have to keep people in their homes.

nment that we’re working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to

onsequences and there are going to be costs.  and we have to be able to communicate

osal that’s in the senate right now.  that’s what we have to fight for.  in the meantime,

r foreign policy is not just end the war in iraq; we have to change the mindset that

resident, i intend to address it. and here’s what we have to do.  we have to, first of all,

ted for it previously. but here’s the point. what we have to do is we’ve got to have

ur combat troops out within 16 months. that’s why we have to initiate the kind of

ved reading scores. that’s the kind of commitment we have to make early on.

very different sentences.  that is something that we have to talk about. but that’s a

we have to have civilian options as well. not just the peace

we have to make sure that we do not hesitate to act when it c

we have to stand up for these issues when it’s tough, and tha

who are going to be retiring. and the first thing we have to do is to put an end to george

by PMM and the IIS-WordWatchers