Gelareh Mohammadi
Alessandro Vinciarelli
ABSTRACT
Persuasive communication is part of everyone's daily life. With the emergence of social websites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, persuasive communication is now seen online on a daily basis. This paper explores the effect of multi-modality and perceived personality on persuasiveness of social multimedia content. The experiments are performed over a large corpus of movie review clips from Youtube which is presented to online annotators in three different modalities: only text, only audio and video. The annotators evaluated the persuasiveness of each review across different modalities and judged the personality of the speaker. Our detailed analysis confirmed several research hypotheses designed to study the relationships between persuasion, perceived personality and communicative channel, namely modality. Three hypotheses are designed: the first hypothesis studies the effect of communication modality on persuasion, the second hypothesis examines the correlation between persuasion and personality perception and finally the third hypothesis, derived from the first two hypotheses explores how communication modality influence the personality perception.
- S. Argamon, S. Dhawle, M. Koppel, and J. Pennebaker, J.W.baker. Lexical predictors of personality type. In Proceedings of Interface and the Classification Society of North America, 2005.Google Scholar
- V. Benet-Martinez and O. P. John. "los cinco grandes" across cultural and ethnic groups: multitrait-multimodal analyses of the big five in spanish and english. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75:729--750, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Biel, M. Teijeiro, and D. Gatica-Perez. Facetube: Predicting personality from facial expressions of emotion in online conversational video. In Proceedings of International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pages 53--56, Santa Monica, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. B. Buller, B. LePoire, A. R. K., and S. Eloy. Social perceptions as mediators of the effect of speech rate similarity on compliance. Human Communication Research, 19:286--286, 1992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Chaiken. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37:1387--1397, 1979.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Chaiken and A. Eagly. Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34:606--614, 1976.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Chaiken and A. Eagly. Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2):241--256, 1983.Google Scholar
- P. Ekman, W. Friesen, M. O'Sullivan, and K. Scherer. Relative importance of face, body, and speech in judgments of personality and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2):270--277, 1980.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Fogg. Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 225--232, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Fogg. Computers as Persuasive Social Actors, chapter 5, pages 89--120. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar
- K. D. Frandsen. Effect of threat appeals and media of transmission. Speech Monographs, 30:101--104, 1963.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Funder. Personality. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 52:197--221, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Glick, J. A. Demorest, and C. A. Hotze. Keeping your distance: Group membership, personal space, and requests for small favors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(4):315--330, 1988.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. L. Kleinke and D. A. Singer. Influence of gaze on compliance with demanding and conciliatory requests in a field setting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(3):386--390, 1979.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Mason and S. Suri. Conducting behavioral research on amazon's mechanical turk. Behavioral Research Methods, 44(1):1--23, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Matthews, I. Deary, and M. Whiteman. Personality traits. Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Mehrabian. Silent message. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1971.Google Scholar
- G. Miller. Persuasion: new directions in theory and research, chapter On being persuaded: some basic distinctions, pages 11--28. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980.Google Scholar
- G. Mohammadi and A. Vinciarelli. Automatic personality perception: Prediction of trait attribution based on prosodic features. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(3):273--278, 2012.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Nass, B. Fogg, and Y. Moon. Can computers be teammates? affiliation and social identity effects in human-computer interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(6):669--678, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Nass and K. Min Lee. Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3):171--181, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Nowak and S. Ruger. How reliable are annotations via crowdsourcing: a study about inter-annotator agreement for multi-label image annotation. In Proceedings of International Conference on Multimedia Information Retrieval, pages 239--248, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Park, G. Mohammadi, R. Artstein, and L. Morency. Crowdsourcing micro-level multimedia annotations: The challenges of evaluation and interface. In Proceedings of the ACM multimedia workshop on Crowdsourcing for multimedia, pages 29--34, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Rammstedt and O. P. John. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. in Journal of Research in Personality, 41:203--212, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Reardon. Persuasion in practice. Sage Publications, Inc,, 1991.Google Scholar
- C. Segrin. The effect of nonverbal behavior on outcome of compliance gaining attempts. Communication Studies, 44(3):169--187, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Werner. Instrusiveness and persuasive impact of three communication media. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 89:155--181, 1982.Google Scholar
- M. Wollmer, F. Weninger, T. Knaup, B. Schuller, C. Sun, K. Sagae, and L. Morency. Youtube movie reviews: In, cross, and open-domain sentiment analysis in an audiovisual context. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Concept-Level Opinion and Sentiment Analysis, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Zimbardo and M. Leippe. The psychology of attitude change and social influence. McGraw-Hill New York, 1991.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Who is persuasive?: the role of perceived personality and communication modality in social multimedia
Recommendations
Computational Analysis of Persuasiveness in Social Multimedia: A Novel Dataset and Multimodal Prediction Approach
ICMI '14: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Multimodal InteractionOur lives are heavily influenced by persuasive communication, and it is essential in almost any types of social interactions from business negotiation to conversation with our friends and family. With the rapid growth of social multimedia websites, it ...
Introducing Multi-modality in Persuasive Task Oriented Virtual Sales Agent
Neural Information ProcessingAbstractIn recent years, the usage of virtual assistants to complete tasks like service scheduling and online shopping has increased in both popularity and need. An end user’s task goals are the main objectives of a task-oriented conversation agent, and ...
The effects of virtual agent humor and gaze behavior on human-virtual agent proxemics
IVA'11: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent virtual agentsWe study whether a virtual agent that delivers humor through verbal behavior can affect an individual's proxemic behavior towards the agent. Participants interacted with a virtual agent through natural language and, in a separate task, performed an ...
Comments