The Mental State of Influencers

Most analysis of influence looks at the mechanisms Used, and how effectively they work on the intended audience. Here we consider influence from another perspective: what do the language choices made by influencers enable us to detect about their internal mental state, strategies and assessments of success. We do this by examining the language used by the U.S. 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 seven channels: persona deception, the attempt by each candidate to seem as attractive as possible, nouns, as surrogates for content; positive and negative language; and three categories that have received little attention, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives. Although the results are preliminary, several intuitive and expected hypotheses are supported, but some unexpected and surprising structures also emerge. The results provide insights into related influence scenarios where open-source data is available, for example marketing, business reporting, and intelligence.

[1]  Steven Skiena,et al.  Large-Scale Sentiment Analysis for News and Blogs (system demonstration) , 2007, ICWSM.

[2]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment , 2010, ICWSM.

[3]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Lying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic Styles , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[4]  Chenchuramaiah T. Bathala Giving Content to Investor Sentiment: The Role of Media in the Stock Market , 2007 .

[5]  Moshe Koppel,et al.  Automatically Classifying Documents by Ideological and Organizational Affiliation , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics.

[6]  Casey Whitelaw Using Appraisal Taxonomies for Sentiment Analysis , 2005 .

[7]  Hiroshi Kanayama,et al.  Deeper Sentiment Analysis Using Machine Translation Technology , 2004, COLING.

[8]  Shlomo Argamon,et al.  Systemic Functional Features in Stylistic Text Classification , 2004, AAAI Technical Report.

[9]  Gene H. Golub,et al.  Matrix computations , 1983 .

[10]  Cindy K. Chung,et al.  Revealing Dimensions of Thinking in Open-Ended Self-Descriptions: An Automated Meaning Extraction Method for Natural Language. , 2008, Journal of research in personality.

[11]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods , 2010 .

[12]  Jeonghee Yi,et al.  Sentiment analysis: capturing favorability using natural language processing , 2003, K-CAP '03.

[13]  Tim Loughran,et al.  When is a Liability not a Liability? Textual Analysis, Dictionaries, and 10-Ks , 2010 .