Tom H. C. Anderson - Next Gen Market Research™roxio creator 2011 pro features
microsoft powerpoint 2013 vs 2010
avid media composer 5.5 espaol
sony vegas pro 12 keygen funktioniert nicht
microsoft windows 8.1 vs 8
adobe acrobat x pro compare documents
tuneup utilities 2008 espaol gratis
eset smart security 6 1 year key
alien skin exposure 5 mac
adobe creative suite 5.5 web premium student and teacher edition
microsoft office professional 2010 upgrade from 2007
can you upgrade microsoft surface rt to windows 8 pro
eset smart security 6 username and password blog
adobe indesign cs5.5 windows xp
roxio creator 2011 pro mac
product key microsoft office home and student 2007 versione completa
acala video mp3 ripper license code
adobe audition cs6 plugins
parallels desktop 7 mac gratis
adobe photoshop cs3 extended download kostenlos
adobe audition 3.0 youtube
keygen para sony vegas pro 9 windows 7
adobe audition 2 user guide
autodesk autocad mechanical 2013 windows 8
excel vba programming for dummies by john walkenbach download
microsoft frontpage 2003 warez
microsoft office access 2010 vba programming for dummies
ableton live 9 suite 64 bit
windows 8.1 pro microsoft store
microsoft office for mac 2011 home and business pl chomikuj
ableton live 9 suite 9.0.1
que es adobe indesign cs3 wikipedia
autodesk mudbox 2012 keygen download
belajar microsoft office publisher 2003
microsoft word 2007 for dummies online
adobe illustrator cs4 3d effects
corel painter x3 requirements
microsoft visual studio 2008 professional edition espaol
microsoft visual studio 2010 ultimate nedir
microsoft windows server 2008 r2 enterprise sp1 integrated march 2012
pixelmator for mac 10.6.8
camtasia studio 8 requirements
adobe photoshop cs3 extended download italiano
buy microsoft office professional plus 2013
microsoft c windows 8 pro enterprise activator v1.5.rar
adobe audition cs6 offline installer
adobe premiere pro cs5 classroom in a book ebook
microsoft office 2003 professional with sp3
adobe illustrator cs5 vs cs6
adobe creative suite 6 design standard requirements
propellerhead reason 5 osx
adobe photoshop lightroom 5.2 final
microsoft student con encarta premium 2009 mf
system requirements for microsoft frontpage 2003
microsoft access 2010 for dummies pdf
alien skin blow up 3 rus
fl studio 10.0 8 xxl bundle assign
adobe presenter 9 ipad
ashampoo burning studio 8 full espaol mf
eset smart security 6 username and password keys 2013
vmware workstation 8 windows 8 support
ashampoo winoptimizer platinum 5.05 letoltes
como instalar newblue titler pro
autodesk autocad pid 2010 keygen
microsoft windows 8 build 9200 professional rtm
adobe photoshop elements 10 price
download autodesk autocad 2010 portable
adobe photoshop cs3 extended handbuch download
vmware workstation 7.1.4 tools
adobe premiere pro cs3 rar
will adobe audition 3.0 work on windows 8
nikon usa capture nx2 update
microsoft onenote 2013 promo code
adobe indesign cs6 portable mac
adobe photoshop extended cs6 macwin
autodesk autocad 2010 keygen only
adobe premiere pro cs6 download windows 8
download adobe photoshop cc 14.0 final full version
xin adobe audition 3.0
corel ventura 10 mac
microsoft office 2007 professional key product
propellerhead reason 4 usato
microsoft visual studio 2010 premium with msdn subscription
autodesk maya 2013 keygen windows
mise jour adobe premiere elements 9
autodesk autocad mep 2011 keygen
microsoft office professional plus 2013 download ita
autodesk maya 2011 system requirements mac
microsoft office communications server 2007 r2 standard edition
acdsee pro 2.5 license code
vmware workstation 10 key pastebin
microsoft expression web designer 2007 tek link
autodesk autocad 2008 xforce keygen
autodesk robot structural analysis professional 2014 system requirements
access 2010 for dummies espaol
adobe captivate 5.5 deployment
microsoft expression encoder 4 pro h.264
download vmware fusion 6 for mac
alibre design expert 2012 keygen
keygen para el sony vegas pro 9
parallels desktop 6 for mac keygen.rar password
adobe robohelp 8 html
camtasia studio 8 keygen by bfv
download microsoft office word 2013 32 bit
cyberlink powerdvd 10 ultra 3d spolszczenie
microsoft office home and student 2013 officeworks
sony dvd architect pro 5.0b keygen
nero 10 multimedia suite download
adobe photoshop cs5 classroom in a book w dvd
sony cd architect 5.2 cd mastering software
adobe premiere elements 9 instant movie
rob papen predator mac audioz
microsoft windows 8 pro pack 32bit64bit svensk
ableton suite 8 upgrade to 9
adobe photoshop lightroom 5.2 multilingual x86x64
dragon naturally speaking 10.1 manual
autodesk maya 2011 online documentation
vmware workstation 10.0.2 product key
you cant use this version of the application adobe after effects cs6
adobe acrobat xi pro keeps crashing
vmware workstation 9 osx
sony dvd architect pro 5.0 portable
microsoft office professional plus 2007 error 1706
atomix virtual dj pro 7 download
adobe soundbooth cs4 update
microsoft office word 2007 jar
burnaware professional full
the adobe photoshop cs6 book for digital photographers rar
adobe photoshop lightroom 5.4 download
microsoft visual studio 2008 professional sp1 download
dragon naturally speaking 10.1 standard italiano download
adobe captivate 5.5 run as administrator
adobe acrobat 3d windows 7
what is included in adobe creative suite 6 design web premium
microsoft frontpage 2003 english key
download keylight 1.2 adobe after effects cs5
microsoft office excel 2007 download
download eset smart security 6 gratuit
autodesk alias surface 2012 download
solidworks premium 2013 sp0.0 32bit 64bit ssq
chief architect premier x5 library
lynda com user experience fundamentals for web design
microsoft windows 8 upgrade fresh install
adobe indesign cs5 portable 1 link
microsoft access 2013 templates
acronis true image 11 home win 7
microsoft windows 8 enterprise x64
acdsee pro 2 keygen download
windows 7 en vmware workstation 8
microsoft office powerpoint 2007 notes pdf
adobe after effects cs6 2013
vmware workstation 8 register key
harga autodesk autocad 2012
microsoft windows 8 ultimate product key
adobe soundbooth cs4cs5
sony acid music studio 9 download
corel videostudio pro x3 baixar
microsoft streets and trips 2010 with gps
parallels desktop 8 for mac windows 8
microsoft visual studio 2010 ultimate help
corel paintshop photo pro x3 trke yama
autodesk maya 2015 xforce keygen
parallels desktop 9 para mac download
cyberlink powerdirector 9 user guide
autodesk maya 2012 32 bit full download
corel videostudio pro x6 vs adobe premiere elements
adobe acrobat xi pro full keygen
adobe acrobat xi standard ebay
acronis true image 11 home windows7 64bit
autodesk revit 2014 cost
ti phn mm cyberlink powerdirector 7 ultra
corel paintshop pro x5 transparent background
acdsee pro 3 keygen
microsoft office word 2007 xp
microsoft office access 2007 home and student
microsoft office 2007 home and student requirements
microsoft visual studio 2012 professional product key
best buy microsoft office 2007 standard
microsoft office excel 2007 get started tab
microsoft visual studio 2008 professional update
adobe creative suite 5.5 design standard upgrade mac
microsoft visual studio 2010 ultimate full
microsoft office word 2007 not spell checking
microsoft office professional plus 2013 product key 2014
descargar ableton live 7 full mac
acdsee photo manager 2009 review
install adobe dreamweaver cs3 windows xp
vmware workstation version 8 key
microsoft visual studio team foundation server 2010 download
camtasia studio 8 key kostenlos
microsoft sql server 2008 enterprise edition r2 download
adobe photoshop cs3 extended download for mac
numero de serie adobe indesign cs5.5 gratis
eset smart security 5 nod32 keys updated daily facebook
microsoft outlook down august 14 2013
adobe pagemaker 7.0 windows 7 compatibility
adobe acrobat xi pro version
microsoft windows 8.1 enterprise rtm x64 volume italian dvd wzt
adobe premiere elements 10 1080p
adobe audition cs5.5 guide

More Than Market Research - Gain The Information Advantage

Tom H. C. Anderson - Next Gen Market Research™ header image 6

Text Analysis of 2012 Presidential Debates

October 21st, 2012 · 2 Comments

Obama more certain and positive - Romney more negative and direct

Lately there’s been a craze in analyzing 140 character Tweets to make all sorts of inferences in regard to everything from brand affinity to political opinion. While I’m generally of the position that the best return on investment of text analytics is on large volumes of comments, I fear we often overlook other interesting data sources in favor of what a small percentage (about 8%) of the population says in tweets or blogs.

When the speakers are the current and possibly next president of the US, looking at what if anything can be gained by leveraging text analytics on even very small data sets start becoming more interesting.

Therefore ahead of the final presidential debate between Obama and Romney we uploaded the last two presidential debates into our text analytics software, OdinText, to see what if anything political pundits and strategists might find useful. OdinText read and coded the debates in well under a minute, and below are some brief top-line findings for those interested.

[Note, typically text analytics should not be used in isolation from human domain expert analysis. However, in the spirit of curiosity, and in hopes of providing a quick and unbiased analysis we're providing these findings informally ahead of tonight's debate.]

The Devil in the Detail

Comments from sources like a debate are heavily influenced by the questions that are asked by the moderator. Therefore, unlike analysis of more free flowing unguided comments by the many, where often the primary benefit of text analytics is to understand what is being discussed by how many, the benefit of analyzing a carefully moderated discussion between just two people is more likely to lie in the detail. Therefore rather than focusing on the typical charts quantifying exactly which issues are discussed which are technically controlled by the moderator the focus of text analytics on these types of smaller data is on the details of exactly how things are said as well as what often isn’t said or avoided.

That’s not the right answer for America. I’ll restore the vitality that gets America working again
(Governor Romney Debate #2)

In text analysis of the debates the first findings often reveal frequency differences in specific terms and issues such as the fact that Governor Romney is far more likely than President Obama to mention “America” when speaking (88 vs. 42 times across the two first debates). We make no assumptions in this analysis whether or not this is a strategic consideration during the debates, or is a matter of personal style, and whether or not it has a beneficial impact on the audience.

However, certainly the differences in frequency and repetition of certain terms mentioned by a speaker such as “Millions looking for work” obviously do reflect how important the speaker believes these issues may be.
How Obama and Romney refer to the audience, the moderator and to US citizens is easy to quantify and may also play a role in how they are perceived. For instance Romney prefers the term “people” (used 77 times in the second debate vs. Obama’s 26 times), whereas Obama prefers the term “folks” (19 times vs. Romney’s 2 times). Text Analytics also quickly identified that unlike the case in the first debate, Obama was twice as likely as Romney to mention the moderator “Candy” by name in the second debate.

Certain terms like “companies”, “taxes” and “families” were favored more by Obama/avoided by Romney. Conversely, Romney was significantly more likely to mention measuring terms though many were rather indefinite such as “number”, “high” and “half” I.e. “…unemployment at chronically high level…”, we did however also see an attempt by Romney to reference specific percentages as well. Obviously, text analytics cannot fact check quantitative claims; this is where domain expertise by a human analyst comes into play.

From Specific terms to general Linguistic Differences
Taking text analytics a step beyond the specifics to analyze emotion and linguistic measures of speech can also be interesting…

Volume and Complexity
(Obama more complex - Romney more verbose)

In both debates, Romney spoke approx. 500 more words than Obama (7% and 6% more words, respectively); this greater talkativeness sometimes reflects a more competitive/aggressive behavior. Obama on the other hand used more sophisticated language than Romney in the first debate (7% more words with 6 or more letters, see chart presenting percentage differences in the use of certain types of language by the two candidates; comparisons were done separately for the first and second debate). However, he reduced the use of such language in his speech during the second debate.

Past, Present and Future Tense
(Obama explains past - Romney focuses on future)

Both candidates were equally likely to speak in the present tense. However, in both debates Obama was significantly more likely than Romney to speak in the past tense in both debates (55% and 18% more often, respectively). Romney on the other hand was more likely to speak in the future tense in both debates (60% and 34% more often). This contrast between past versus future orientation in the debates is of course in part explained by their differing status, that is, Obama’s prior presidential experience and Romney’s aspiration to become elected for this office in the future.

Personal Pronouns
(Obama Collectivist - Romney Direct)

Whereas, both candidates expressed equally often an individualistic tone in their speaking (i.e., the frequency of the use of 1st person singular pronouns e.g., I, me, mine), Obama in both debates was more likely to use a collectivist tone (42% and 60% more, respectively). This use of 1st person plural pronouns e.g., we, us, our), often suggests a stronger identification with a group, team, nation. In part this may coincide with Obama’s slogan from the first elections (”Yes, we can.), which may reflect collectivist rather than individualist values.

In the second debate, Romney used direct language more often than Obama, by addressing the president and/or the moderator. Romney was 57% more likely than Obama to use 2nd person personal pronouns, e.g., you, your). For instance, in phrases like “Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies (…)” or “Thank you Kerry for your question.” Obama, on the other hand, reduced the use of such language from the first to the second debate (using 38% more direct language in the first debate as compared to the second).

Emotion
(Obama more positive - Romney more negative)

The analysis of the emotional content of the debate revealed that candidates’ speeches was often emotionally charged but the focus on the positive or negative affect differed among the candidates.
Both candidates used positive emotions equally often in the first debate and they used negative emotions equally often in the second debate.

Emotional tone of candidates’ speech could have had an important impact on their perception by the audience. Especially, heavier use of negative affect by Romney in the first debate could have made the voters pay more attention to him and possibly offer more support.

In the first debate, Romney used significantly more negative emotions in his speech (54% more often than Obama) and in particular he expressed more words pertaining to sadness (169% more often than Obama). Conversely, in the second debate, Obama’s speech was significantly more likely to contain positive emotions than Romney’s (12% more).

Complexity
(Obama Ideas - Romney Details)

In both debates, Obama used cognitive language more often than Romney (10% and 13% more in the first and second debates, respectively). Cognitive language contains references to knowledge, awareness, thinking, etc. Obama was also more likely to use language pertaining to causation (75% and 30% more often in the first and second debates) and in the second debate he was also 47% more likely than Romney to express certainty in his speech. The latter may also be partly reflective of a more confident tone of Obama during the second debate in which his performance has been deemed better than the first.

In this same debate, Romney was 47% more likely than Obama to make references to insight and sources of knowledge. Related to this, in both debates Romney speech indicated a greater insistence on numbers/quantitative data and details (75% and 65% more often).

General Issues Focus
(Obama Society & Family - Romney Healthcare & Jobs)

Even though the topics discussed during the debates were prompted and moderated, some patterns of heavier focus on certain issues by the two candidates emerged. Romney made significantly more references to health issues than Obama did during the first debate (43% more). In the first debate, Romney was also more likely to mention occupational issues (26% more often) as well as achievement (36%). Obama, on the other hand, referred to social relationships and family significantly more often than Romney in both debates (social relationships - 9% and 6% more often; family - 104% and 138% more often). Both candidates referred to financial issues equally often in both debates, though this area was mentioned less often during the second debate.

Linguistic Summary
(Key Differences by Speaker in Debates)

As mentioned earlier, whether specific use of language by the two candidates was intentional or not, whether it was part of the candidate’s tactic, or a mere reflection of the character and demographic background is unclear without deeper analysis by a domain expert. Nevertheless, some of the above linguistic differences may certainly have contributed to a candidate winning over more audience support in one or both of the debates. The diagram above presents in a visual form which parts of speech differed significantly between the two candidates. Those marked in bold highlight speech categories that were used by a candidate significantly more often during only one of the debates, hinting at debate-specific language style. For instance, unique during the first debate was Obama’s use of sophisticated language, where Romney relied more on negative emotions, sadness and focused more on health, occupational, and achievement issues. These speech categories were not used significantly more often by either candidate in the second debate. In the latter debate, Obama relied more on the use of positive emotions and certainty in his language, whereas Romney used more direct language and references to insight.

Conclusion
(Negative VS Positive Emotion and Certainty Related to Specific Issues)

Debates are certainly a unique type of unstructured data. The debate follows a predetermined outline, is moderated, and we can assume both participants have invested time anticipating and practicing responses which their team believes will have maximum possible effect for their side. To what extent the types of speech used was intentional or simply related to these different questions and political position of the candidates is hard to say without further research and analysis.

However, if I were on either candidate’s political team, I think even this rather quick text analysis would be useful. As the general consensus is that Romney performed better in the first debate and Obama in the second one, a strategic recommendation may be for Romney to counter Obama’s sophistication on certain issues with negativity and focus on areas where Obama seems to want to focus less on such as health care and Jobs. Conversely, I might counsel Obama to counter Romney’s negative emotion with even greater positive emotion when possible, and continue/encourage Romney to go into more detail and counter these with the certainty present in his speech from debate #2.

Further analysis would be needed to better understand exactly what impact the various speech patterns had in the debate. That said, it seems some tactics known to be successful in social and business situations have been used during the debates. For instance, Obama by using more 1st person plural pronouns (e.g., we, our, us) may be identifying better with the entire nation and thus may have created a feeling of unity, shared goals and beliefs with the public.

This simple tactic has been used by managers and orators for a long time. Sometimes the use of more individualistic language may lead to too much separation and loss of potential support. However, we also need to acknowledge that different strategies are successful for candidates at different stages. For instance, negative emotions are likely resulting from Romney’s critique of the current state of affairs and Obama’s actions. Negative emotion here and in moderation may well be an appropriate choice of language for someone aspiring to change things.

Conversely, Obama responding and reflecting on his past 4 years in office using more positive affect is an obvious way of presenting his experience and work as a president in the better light.

A very exciting line of further research could explore candidate’s facial expressions during the debate. They may match onto findings from the text analysis (e.g., amount of positive versus negative emotions) but may also reveal interesting discrepancies and tendencies of the candidates. It would be an interesting analysis because body language can be as an important a source of information as spoken language and it can be very a powerful tool in winning over support. This new avenue of research could be very helpful in understanding which candidate received more support and whether it was only influenced by political attitudes, language, or body language of candidates or a combination of the three.

Ideally further analysis combining text analytics with other data from people meters, facial expressions, or other biometric measures could help answer some of these questions more definitively and provide insight into exactly how powerful language choice and style can be.

@TomHCAnderson
@OdinText

PS. Special thanks to my colleague Dr. Gosia Skorek for indulging my idea and helping me run these data so quickly on a Saturday! ;)

[NOTE: There are several ways to text analyze this type of data. The power of text analytics depends on the volume and quality of data available, domain expertise, time invested and creativity of the analyst, as well as other methodological considerations on how the data can be processed using the software. Anderson Analytics - OdinText is not a political consultancy, and our focus is generally on much larger volumes of comments within the consumer insights and CRM domain. Those interested in more detail regarding the analysis may contact us at here www.andersonanalytics.com www.odintext.com]

[Post to Twitter] 

Tags: Anderson Analytics · Marketing research · Odin Text · OdinText · Text Analytics · Uncategorized · text mining · tomhcanderson

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Keith Walters // Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Interesting. Will you be posting a follow up after tonight’s debate?

  • 2 Tom H C Anderson // Oct 22, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Perhaps, if tonight’s debate is really interesting we may turn something around quickly.

    Would probably keep it a little shorter this time.

Leave a Comment