Kayla N. Jordan, Ph.D.
Harrisburg University of Science and Technology
The parties’ conventions are now over. The candidates have accepted their parties’ nominations, and the general election has officially begun. In the coming weeks, we will learn more about the candidates in debates, stump speeches, and other events. Before that, it is worth looking at what we can glean about the candidates from their convention speeches. In this post, I explore the two vice presidential candidates: Senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence. In a LIWC analysis of their speeches, two features stood out: their motivations and risk orientation.
David McClelland’s motivation theory posits three major drives of human behavior: power, affiliation, and achievement. In studies of U.S. presidents, power motivated presidents (like FDR and LBJ) tend to be rated more effective by historians but are also more likely to enter a war. Affiliation motivated presidents are often good negotiators but can be weighed down by scandal (like George W. Bush and Nixon). Achievement motivated presidents (like Woodrow Wilson) can be highly idealistic but also ineffectual. Here I measure these motivations using LIWC2015 where power motivation is indicated by use of words like leader, demand, and strength, affiliation motivation by the use of words like help, family, and ally, and achievement motivation by words like win, excellence, and gain.
During the Democratic primary, Kamala Harris scored relatively high in power motivation and relatively low in affiliation motivation. As shown in the figure below, her nomination acceptance speech showed a different set of motives. Unlike in the primaries where she was vying against other Democrats and focused on status, the now Democratic nominee for vice president was mainly concerned with affiliation. In making the case for the Democratic ticket, she focused on family and community using both personal examples (e.g. ‘She taught us to put family first—the family you’re born into and the family you choose.’) and political ideals (e.g. ‘People of all ages and colors and creeds who are, yes, taking to the streets, and also persuading our family members, rallying our friends, organizing our neighbors, and getting out the vote.’). Senator Harris seems to now be motivated primarily by social relationships and bringing the Democratic party and nation together.
Mike Pence also showed affiliation motivation in his nomination acceptance speech with talk of his family (e.g. ‘would not be possible without the support of my family’) and the nation (e.g. ‘A country doesn’t get through such a time unless its people find the strength within.). However, Vice President Pence’s speech demonstrated an equally strong power motivation. Much of his speech focused on the strength of the president (e.g. ‘Donald Trump had leadership and the vision to make America great again’) and status of the nation (e.g. ‘if you want a president who falls silent when our heritage is demeaned or insulted, then he’s not your man.’). As his own status is being threatened, perhaps it is unsurprising that Pence’s speech showed motivation to keep that status and power.
Beyond their motivations, the VP candidates differed in their risk orientation. Pulling from regulatory focus theory, some individuals are naturally more risk averse and cautious. They prioritize safety and security in their decision-making processes. Other individuals are more risk seeking and make bold choices. They prioritize rewards and benefits when making decisions. Linguistically, risk-oriented (or risk-averse) people tend to use words like danger, defend, and disadvantage. Reward-oriented people tend to use words like better, optimistic, and achieve.
In the Democratic primary, Harris tended to balance risk and reward concerns using words indicative of each equally. The figure below, which shows the relative use of risk versus reward language, indicates a slight shift in Harris’s orientation. In her acceptance speech, Harris was significantly more reward-oriented. Rather than focusing on dangers, Harris focused on the benefits that could come with a Biden-Harris administration (e.g. ‘not just to get us through our current crises, but to somewhere better’). Mike Pence, on the other hand, considered risks and rewards more equally in his speech. His speech outlined the accomplishments and goals of the Trump-Pence administration (e.g. ‘we have a President with the toughness, energy and resolve to see us through’). However, Pence also hammered home the risk and dangers of a Biden presidency (e.g. ‘Joe Biden would set America on a path of socialism and decline’). Beyond the rewards of another four years, Pence was preoccupied with the risk of an electoral loss.
Given the age of the presidential candidates this election year, the likelihood of the eventual vice president becoming president is potentially greater than normal. Hence, understanding how Senator Harris and Vice President Pence approach problems and decisions is especially important. As a vice presidential candidate, Senator Harris is focused on bringing people together and how to make the nation better. Vice President Pence is more split in his focus. On one hand, he also considers social relationships and progress, but he is equally focused on power (his own, the party’s, the nation’s) and the risks of the other side’s plans. Soon, the VP candidates will meet in their first and only debate providing another opportunity to glean insights into how they might approach governing.
Contact: kjordan@harrisburgu.edu
Kayla N. Jordan, Ph.D.
Harrisburg University of Science and Technology
This week saw the beginning of the 2020 Democratic National Convention with many notable political figures taking the (virtual) stage. One of these speakers was the trailblazing progressive, Senator Bernie Sanders. After another unsuccessful run at the presidency, Sen. Bernie Sanders once again gave a speech in support of someone he was recently in competition with. However, pundits have said that his speech demonstrated a stronger support of this year’s nominee, Vice President Joe Biden, than his support of 2016’s nominee, Hillary Clinton. Also, despite still not being a Democrat, Sanders seems to be more of a team player this election explicitly calling on his supporters to vote for Biden. Does his language support these perceptions? Short answer: yes.
Compared to his speech at the 2016 convention, Sanders’ speech this week was given with more certainty. In 2016, Sanders used more cognitive processing words (9.4% of his speech was words like should, believe, think). This week, only 7.6% of his speech was made up of these words indicating a greater sense of certainty in what he was saying. This certainty may be due to his desire to ensure supporters vote for Biden (instead of staying home or voting third party). He may also see Biden as a better ally than Clinton for advancing his progressive ideas.
His speech at the DNC also reflected a greater sense of affiliation with the Democratic party. When people are motivated by social relationships, they tend to use words like we, together, and ally. In 2016, affiliation terms made up 4.1% of his speech. This week, affiliation terms made up 5.7% of the words in his speech. Sanders may feel greater connection with Biden, and Sanders may also see the importance of coming together at this unprecedented time.
Two other changes in Sanders’ convention speeches are worth noting. First, while Sanders sincerely wanted Biden to succeed come November, his speech this convention may reflect some disappointment in his repeated failure to secure his own nomination. Sanders’ speech scored much lower on authenticity (dropping from a standard score of 22 to 11). To put party over ideology, Sanders may have felt the need to suppress his usual fiery, progressive style.
Second, this time Sanders was more confident in his own position within the Democratic party. Clout is a composite linguistic measure reflecting the status and power of the speaker. Sanders’ clout score increased from 2016 (79.8) to 2020 (89.2) suggesting that Sanders thinks he is in a better place within the Democratic party than he was four years ago. Check out these older posts for more info on how authenticity and clout are measured.
Once seen as a staunch Independent, Bernie Sanders has become a vital progressive figure in Democratic politics. As the progressive wing of the party grows, Sanders can provide a clue as to how progressive leaders and voters are viewing this election and Biden’s candidacy. The analysis here suggests that though they may not agree with all his positions, progressives see a Biden presidency as the only way forward at this juncture. Check back for more psychological text analyses of the 2020 Democratic and Republican national conventions as they unfold these next two weeks.
Contact: kjordan@harrisburgu.edu
Kayla N. Jordan and James W. Pennebaker
University of Texas at Austin
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are officially rivals for the 2016 presidential election. Their acceptance speeches at their respective party conventions demonstrated the stark contrast between the two candidates. In this post, we look at three major points of divergence: the emotional tone of their speeches, the certainty they have in their beliefs, and the focus they place on power, affiliation, and achievement.
Emotional Tone
The most obvious difference between the two speeches was their tones. During the primary debates, Trump tended to be relatively positive and upbeat, but during his acceptance speech, Trump was uncharacteristically negative and pessimistic. Trump painted a dark portrait of the world. To him, the current outlook is bleak, and we have to “make America great again.” After several years of Democratic leadership, he argued that much must be changed in order to fix the country and set it on the right path.
Clinton, on the other hand, gave an upbeat, optimistic speech. Her language during the debate season was generally positive and optimistic, and her acceptance speech was even more so. For all the problems left to be solved, the nation is in a fundamentally good place. No matter what might be going wrong, people are capable of working hard and accomplishing great things. For Clinton, the American people should continue striving along the current path for progress.
Using our text analysis program LIWC, we simply calculated the percentage of emotionally-tinged words within the two acceptance speeches. An emotional tone variable was created where a score of 100 would reflect a perfectly positive upbeat use of language and a score of 0 would be completely negative. A score of 50 reflects an equal balance of positive and negative emotionally-related words. Across all previous debates this season, both Trump and Clinton have received tone scores around 60.
As depicted in the graph, Clinton’s language increased in positive tone from her debates whereas Trump’s became decidedly more negative. If you look back over our previous posts this election season, Trump’s score of 30 is lower than the majority of other politicians for any single debate; only 13% of politicians in debates had lower scores.
Belief Certainty
In addition to their emotional tones, another area in which Trump and Clinton differ significantly is belief certainty. When people are working through issues, they tend to use words like think, believe, and know which reflects cognitive processing. People who are no longer working through issues or who are more certain in their beliefs use these words less. In the graph below, we compared the candidates’ use of cognitive processing words to all the politicians in the primary debates and conventions. The numbers in the graph reflect the percentage of politicians who used more cognitive processing words than a given speech. Hence, higher scores indicate more certainty and lower scores more processing. For example, a score of 95 would indicate the 95% of all other speakers used more cognitive processing words.
Trump is more certain in his beliefs now than in the primary debates. Trump may have still been working out some of his beliefs in the primaries, but his acceptance speech indicates he has become more entrenched in his positions. Now, he doesn’t need to process his positions; he already knows what he thinks. Above everything, Trump uses language like he has the answers to the problems he is faced with.
Clinton’s language, on the other hand, is indicative of someone who may still be working through issues. While she was processing problems more during the primary debates, compared to Trump, she was still trying to understand issues. As was seen in the primary season, she engaged with the issues and her opponent, Bernie Sanders, shifting her positions to better match voters’ attitudes. Clinton knows her beliefs, but is more willing to think about alternate viewpoints and change her opinions.
Power, Affiliation, and Achievement
Finally, Trump and Clinton have different motivations that drive them. As we have discussed in previous posts, people naturally differ in the extent to which they are guided by their focus on power, achievement, and affiliation. Those concerned with power judge themselves and others by their relative status and influence. Those driven by needs for affiliation are more concerned with having and making friends and allies. Those focused on achievement use words that reflect topics such as ambition, trying, and success or failure.
Relative to Clinton, Trump is concerned with power and status. This can be seen in statements like: “It’s time to deliver a victory for the American people.” and “It is time to show the whole world that America Is Back – bigger, and better and stronger than ever before.” In the primary, Trump had relatively little concern for power. Now that he has secured the nomination, power is more central to his thoughts.
Clinton makes more references to affiliation and achievement. It was clear she was distinguishing herself from Trump responding, “We’ll fix it together,” showing the value she places on cooperation rather than power. Clinton was more oriented toward social relationships in general. She spent time connecting to other Democrats, thanking Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden for their work. Based her language, Clinton isn’t thinking about the power others have, but rather on what they get done and how well they work with others.
Summary
Compared to their language in the primaries, both candidates shifted their language in accepting their party’s nomination. Since becoming the official nominee, Trump changed rather dramatically from being relatively optimistic to being quite pessimistic. Was this new negative tone a calculated strategy to turn voters against the Democratic party? Or did it reflect some kind of psychological turning point that signaled his own his own anxieties or insecurities? His convention speech was also striking in that he used language with much greater certainty than ever before. During the primary debates, Trump was remarkably low in concern for power, but his acceptance speech revealed a strikingly high focus on power and status.
Clinton’s language changed less from the debates to the convention. Her convention speech was even more optimistic than in the debates. Like Trump, she was slightly more certain in her beliefs during the convention after working out the party platform. Even more so than the debates, Clinton is concerned with affiliation and achievement. Going into the general election, Clinton’s language is focused on accomplishing her plans and working with those who have supported her.
From a personality perspective, the convention acceptance speeches said a great deal about both candidates. Clinton’s language use was consistent with what we have seen from her in the last year and, indeed, since she ran for president eight years ago. Across time and context, her language has reliably revealed optimism, awareness of different perspectives, and a focus on friends and achievement. In comparison, Trump’s speech was a fundamental departure from the past in the ways he has used words. Normally optimistic, his convention speech was starkly pessimistic. Normally, acknowledging different perspectives, his convention language conveyed belief, unwavering certainty. Normally low in power orientation, his speech was quite high.
Surprising Frontrunner: A Look at John Kasich
April 14, 2016
Kayla N. Jordan and James W. Pennebaker
University of Texas at Austin
The 2016 primary season has been a dream for many pundits and a nightmare for others. Despite the leads which made Trump and Clinton the obvious nominees, the race remains contested on both sides. Often below most people’s radar, John Kasich continues to remain in the race and, as we move closer to the conventions, promises to play an important role. While we have never examined Kasich in this blog, his resolve to stay in the race makes him worth a closer look.
Needs for Affiliation, Achievement, and Power
Kasich stands out from the other candidates in being highly oriented toward affiliation as shown in the graph below. In the debates, he frequently mentions friends and allies and reveals a strong commitment to social relationships. Whereas the other candidates are much higher in needs for power and status or achievement and success, Kasich cares about others on a deeply personal level. This is apparent in the high rates he makes references to friends, colleagues, and people he has met on the campaign trail.
Reward- versus Risk-Orientation
Similar to Donald Trump, Kasich is quite reward oriented. He is focused on the gains and benefits of his policies and on how things can go well and less concerned with risk and danger.
Clout – Language of Power and Leadership
More than any other frontrunner, Kasich speaks like a strong leader. Those high in clout speak confidently and tend to use more we-words and social words while using fewer I-words, negations, and swear words. Kasich’s language conveys certainty and interest in others; he is self-assured and secure in his own status.
The Topics that are Mentioned Most
By the words he uses, Kasich is looking domestically not internationally. While Kasich is similar to the other candidates in his focus on the economy, he differs from them in his lack of focus on terrorism. Furthermore, Kasich’s frequently used words demonstrate his orientation toward affiliation (together, community, friends) and reward (grow, strong, great). Like Clinton, Kasich tries to drive home his qualifications (governor, ohio) and why he is the best candidates to improve the country.
Final Thoughts
In the debates, Kasich pays attention to the policies and issues and less on the other candidates. When the other candidates attack, Kasich remains unperturbed refusing to talk about anything other than the issues. In an election dominated by big personalities, Kasich comes across as calm and relaxed, confident in his own abilities.
If Kasich manages to make it to the White House, his need for affiliation may drive him to surround himself with friends and allies. He would likely spend his time focused on domestic issues and throw his energy into economic problems. His orientations toward risk and reward indicate that in pursuing these policies and problems, he may overlook potential risks and downsides in favor of looking at the potential gains and benefits. His low power orientation suggest Kasich is not concerned with the status of others or his place in the political hierarchy; Kasich feels secure in his position without having to compare himself to others. As president, Kasich is likely to be a self-assured leader with clear direction and a concern for others.
Seeking Power, Finding Friends, and Making the Grade: Drive Orientations of the Primary Frontrunners
November 16, 2015
by Kayla N. Jordan and James W. Pennebaker
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin
Last week both the Republicans and Democrats once again hit the debate stage. In this post, we discuss how the frontrunners in both parties compare in the ways they orient to power, achievement, and affiliation. Similar approaches were studied by David McClelland in the 1950s which resulted in his theory of human motivation which proposed three central needs that drive people’s lives:
- Need for power — driven by prestige, control, status, and influence over others
- Need for achievement — driven by succeeding, accomplishing goals and overcoming challenges
- Need for affiliation — motivated by close relationships with others
Whereas McClelland viewed power, achievement, and affiliation as basic motives that could drive people to behave, we think of them more as orientations. That is, people differ in the degree to which they pay attention to these dimensions in their everyday actions. By understanding how political candidates are naturally orienting to these dimensions, we can discern what is important to them.
Consider power orientation. Those who attend to power automatically assess others by how much status or influence they have. In debates, for example, candidates high in power orientation will use words such as leader or follower, demand, weak, or powerful. When they walk into a room, power-oriented people naturally pick out who has the most and the least power. Interestingly, people with high power orientation could be people who themselves are powerful or weak. Their own level of power can be independent of how closely they are monitoring others’ power. David Winter, a student of David McClelland, studied power motivation of presidential speeches using a content analytic strategy. He found Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Franklin D. Roosevelt to be particularly high in power which he argued was related to their political effectiveness and aggression.
Achievement orientation works in a similar way. People who are concerned with other people’s or their own achievement are constantly measuring success, failure, and ambition. To get a sense of the degree to which candidates are paying attention to achievement issues, listen to how frequently they use words such as win, lose, excellence, and earn. Very often, those high in achievement orientation measure themselves by the relative success of themselves compared to others. Winter has found that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were quite high in achievement orientation. Both were highly competitive in school and were known to be hard driving and ambitious from an early age.
People with a high affiliation orientation are scanning their environments for friends, close relationships, and trustworthy allies. Candidates who naturally orient to affiliation use words like help, friend, ally, family, and we. Richard Nixon and George W. Bush were found by Winter to be high in affiliation orientation. Although friendship was important to both of them, not all were socially successful. Nixon, for example, wanted to be close to others but had great difficulty succeeding. He was introverted and, by most historical accounts, one of the most lonely presidents in recent time. Bush prized close friendships and used social compatibility as a central measure of other leaders’ character (his remarks about Putin, Tony Blair, and Dick Cheney are notable examples).
As noted in earlier blog posts, we analyzed the debate language of the top candidates using the computer text analysis program LIWC2015 (www.LIWC.net). The program calculates the percentage of words used by each candidate that reflected power, achievement, and affiliation. To compare the candidates on these dimensions, we have adjusted the scores across all the debates so that a score of 50 is average, a score greater than 60 is above average, and a score less than 40 is below average.
Comparing the Republican frontrunners: Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, and Bush
Jeb! Bush stands out among all of the candidates in both parties as being the highest in achievement orientation. In this last debate and in the previous ones, Bush repeatedly mentioned his own successes — “we’ve had a great American success story” (referring to his time as governor of Florida) — as well as the failures of others — “We lose a fortune on trade.” (referring to policies of the current administration). Given that he is the third member of his immediate family to run for president, Bush is likely measuring his own political legacy with that of his father and brother.
Ben Carson scores in the average range on affiliation and achievement but somewhat below average on power. Being low on power orientation could reflect his being a surgeon — someone who has always had a great deal of professional power and prestige. He may feel that he has no need to check the levels of other people’s power because he is secure in his own powerful status.
Ted Cruz uses language that indicates that he is far more oriented to power and status than any other candidate in either party. In the last debate, Cruz focused on the power of others and himself by invoking militarist language with phrases such as — “armies of accountants”, “enforcing the law and defending the Constitution”, and “building a grassroots army”. In the first three Republican debates, Cruz emerged as the most power-oriented candidate no matter what the debate topic. There is a sense that in any given interaction, he first sizes up the other person’s status before deciding to pursue a conversation with them.
Marco Rubio distinguishes himself by, well, not being distinctive along any of the three dimensions. A deeper analysis, however, suggests that he bounces around in his orientation from debate-to-debate. For example, in the last debate, when discussing domestic and economic issues, Rubio used more power and achievement words. When discussing foreign policy, he used more affiliation words. In the first debate across topics, he was almost as power-oriented as Cruz across all topics but in the CNBC debate, he was nearly as low in power orientation as Trump and Carson.
Donald Trump has a similar profile to Carson. The one difference is that he is by far the lowest of any of the candidates in power orientation. This suggests that Trump is quite secure in his sense of power based on his success in business. His language hints that he does not make big distinctions in the relative status of others.
Comparing the Democratic frontrunners: Clinton and Sanders
Hillary Clinton is somewhat above average in achievement orientation and, perhaps surprisingly, somewhat below average in power orientation. Similar to Jeb Bush’s situation, Hillary’s high drive for achievement could reflect an implicit comparison with her husband’s presidency. The somewhat low power drive indicates she is not overly concerned with paying attention to the status of others. Like Carson and Trump, she comes to the debates with a very strong track record and likely feels relatively secure in her own power.
Bernie Sanders is below average on achievement orientation and above average in power. He is far less concerned with winning or losing points within the traditional political arena. Rather, he seeks to bring about a fundamental change in the culture. He is not conforming with the status quo but rather trying to overthrow it, or, as he said in the last debate, “What my campaign is about is a political revolution.”
Trends and Takeaways
Three trends are important to note. First, power orientation is related to how well candidates’ campaigns are going. The three candidates with the lowest concern for power are those who have been leading in the polls for quite some time. Second, the two candidates highest in achievement orientation are those with a family legacy in politics. Third, overall the Democratic candidates have slightly higher concerns with affiliation than the Republican candidates. This could reflect the tone of the debates or the underlying philosophies of the two parties.
This set of analysis reveals something not only about the personalities of the leading presidential candidates but also suggests how these candidates may approach the office of president. As the election season progresses, we will examine new ways of understanding the mindsets of the remaining candidates and examine how they are changing over time.
References:
Hogenraad, R. (2005). What the words of war can tell us about the risk of war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 11(2), 137-151. doi:10.1207/s15327949pac1102_2
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton: VanNostrand.
Winter, D. G. (2011). Philosopher-king or polarizing politician? A personality profile of barack obama. Political Psychology, 32(6), 1059-1081. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00852.x
Winter, D. G. (2005). Things I’ve learned about personality from studying political leaders at a distance. Journal of Personality, 73(3), 557-584. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00321.x
Wordwatchers 