The Current Analyses – with special attention on Obama
All of the SOU addresses from Truman to Obama spanning from 1946 through 2010 were analyzed using the computerized text analysis program LIWC (Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007). LIWC analyzes each speech, calculating the rates at which over 70 categories of words are used. In addition, six broader categories of language are calculated based on previous research.
Social-emotional style.
Many speakers work to establish a close personal relationship between themselves and their audience. Markers of this warm interpersonal style include the use of personal pronouns, high rates of positive and negative emotion words, and references to other people. In general, people scoring higher on the social-emotional style dimension are individuals who truly enjoy talking and connecting with others. As can be seen in Figure 1, there has been a fascinating evolution in social-emotional language over the last 65 years – from very low social-emotional language to the second Bush’s peak. Obama is reversing this trend. Not as emotionally or socially detached as Nixon and earlier presidents, his style is comparable to that of Reagan’s.
Positive emotionality.
Speakers differ in the degree to which they convey feelings of positive and negative feelings in their speeches. An overall positive emotionality index was computed by subtracting the percentage of negative emotion words from positive emotion words. The higher the number, the more the speaker conveys optimism and the less he uses words that convey feelings of sadness, anxiety, or anger. As can be seen in the second figure, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton were consistently the most positive in their SOU addresses. Obama is striking in being the least positive.
Complex thinking.
An SOU address requires a certain degree of finesse to be effective. The president needs to convey complex ideas in ways that a broad audience can understand. Most issues facing a country – such as health care, national security, immigration – are composed of multiple dimensions that are often difficult to discuss in a simple way. Since Truman, presidents have varied tremendously in their attempts to talk about large issues in complex ways. Most opt to define problems simply and propose relatively straightforward solutions.
Function words allow for a nice metric to capture complexity of thinking. When people are dealing with complicated problems they must acknowledge multiple sides to an issue. Certain exclusive words – including but, except, without, or – signal that the speaker is making a distinction between what is and what is not included in the idea he is conveying. Similarly, other word categories such as negations (e.g., no, not, never) and causal words (e.g., because, cause, effect) also reflect more complex thinking.
Categorical versus dynamic thinking.
In the last 65 years, a striking shift in thinking emerged beginning in the 1980s. With the election of Reagan, presidents moved from displaying categorical thinking to being more dynamic in the ways they discussed complex issues. Every president since then has followed this trend. Obama is striking in being by far the most dynamic and least categorical thinker in the modern presidency.
The Language and Personality of Obama’s State of the Union Addresses
Barack Obama thinks and relates to people differently from most of his predecessors. His thinking style is both highly complex and, at the same time, dynamic. Socially and emotionally, he is surprisingly cool and distant. The word “cool” is not ill-advised. In his SOU addresses, as well as his press conferences, he is detached. His use of both positive emotion and negative emotion words is much lower than recent presidents. Although his personal pronouns in his SOUs are slightly above average, they are actually quite low when talking informally in interviews or press conferences. His is the language of the confident leader as opposed to the close buddy.
Obama has now delivered two SOU addresses. Has his language changed much from a year ago? Very broadly, no. If anything, he is becoming more dynamic in his thinking and slightly less positive in his emotional tone. Overall, however, he maintains a remarkably even style in the ways he talks to his audiences.
portions by James W. Pennebaker
All of the SOU addresses from Truman to Obama spanning from 1946 through 2010 were analyzed using the computerized text analysis program LIWC (Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007). LIWC analyzes each speech, calculating the rates at which over 70 categories of words are used. In addition, six broader categories of language are calculated based on previous research.
Social-emotional style.
Many speakers work to establish a close personal relationship between themselves and their audience. Markers of this warm interpersonal style include the use of personal pronouns, high rates of positive and negative emotion words, and references to other people. In general, people scoring higher on the social-emotional style dimension are individuals who truly enjoy talking and connecting with others. As can be seen in Figure 1, there has been a fascinating evolution in social-emotional language over the last 65 years – from very low social-emotional language to the second Bush’s peak. Obama is reversing this trend. Not as emotionally or socially detached as Nixon and earlier presidents, his style is comparable to that of Reagan’s.
Positive emotionality.
Speakers differ in the degree to which they convey feelings of positive and negative feelings in their speeches. An overall positive emotionality index was computed by subtracting the percentage of negative emotion words from positive emotion words. The higher the number, the more the speaker conveys optimism and the less he uses words that convey feelings of sadness, anxiety, or anger. As can be seen in the second figure, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton were consistently the most positive in their SOU addresses. Obama is striking in being the least positive.
Complex thinking.
An SOU address requires a certain degree of finesse to be effective. The president needs to convey complex ideas in ways that a broad audience can understand. Most issues facing a country – such as health care, national security, immigration – are composed of multiple dimensions that are often difficult to discuss in a simple way. Since Truman, presidents have varied tremendously in their attempts to talk about large issues in complex ways. Most opt to define problems simply and propose relatively straightforward solutions.
Function words allow for a nice metric to capture complexity of thinking. When people are dealing with complicated problems they must acknowledge multiple sides to an issue. Certain exclusive words – including but, except, without, or – signal that the speaker is making a distinction between what is and what is not included in the idea he is conveying. Similarly, other word categories such as negations (e.g., no, not, never) and causal words (e.g., because, cause, effect) also reflect more complex thinking.
Categorical versus dynamic thinking.
In the last 65 years, a striking shift in thinking emerged beginning in the 1980s. With the election of Reagan, presidents moved from displaying categorical thinking to being more dynamic in the ways they discussed complex issues. Every president since then has followed this trend. Obama is striking in being by far the most dynamic and least categorical thinker in the modern presidency.
The Language and Personality of Obama’s State of the Union Addresses
Barack Obama thinks and relates to people differently from most of his predecessors. His thinking style is both highly complex and, at the same time, dynamic. Socially and emotionally, he is surprisingly cool and distant. The word “cool” is not ill-advised. In his SOU addresses, as well as his press conferences, he is detached. His use of both positive emotion and negative emotion words is much lower than recent presidents. Although his personal pronouns in his SOUs are slightly above average, they are actually quite low when talking informally in interviews or press conferences. His is the language of the confident leader as opposed to the close buddy.
Obama has now delivered two SOU addresses. Has his language changed much from a year ago? Very broadly, no. If anything, he is becoming more dynamic in his thinking and slightly less positive in his emotional tone. Overall, however, he maintains a remarkably even style in the ways he talks to his audiences.
portions by James W. Pennebaker
No comments:
Post a Comment