The Trump-Harris debate shows how language reveals personality

An analysis of US presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s word choice during their recent debate reveals five insights into their personalities.

First, my co-authors and I found that while Trump mentioned himself more than Harris, Harris mentioned others more than Trump. Trump also never uttered the words “Kamala” or “Harris,” suggesting an attempt to keep the vice president anonymous.

Second, both candidates placed a similar emphasis on geopolitics, mentioning Russia, Israel, Ukraine and Iran, but neither mentioned Palestine.

Third, Trump used slightly more words signaling uncertainty than Harris.

Fourth, Trump used a lot of achievement-oriented language, while Harris used a lot of language that suggested affiliation and power.

Fifth, Harris focused on the country’s current situation, while Trump emphasized the past and future.

Focus on the words

Psycholinguistic theory suggests that a person’s personality is revealed in their word choice, meaning that when listeners seek information about a person, they often rely on the words that person chooses to use and, just as important, the words that person doesn’t use.

When a speaker wants to persuade an audience, they strategically choose some words and avoid others.

The same concept applies to candidates and voters during election campaigns.

We used theories of psycholinguistics and computational linguistics to analyze the word choices of the two candidates and discover several psychological indicators that may help voters understand what was said “between the lines.”

These data-driven insights could be useful to undecided voters, especially in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada.

They can also be useful for voters who have already decided to vote, such as checking their previous views on the two candidates or changing their opinion based on what they already know about the candidates.

Data sources and analysis methods

I downloaded the debate recording from ABC News.

We then developed a program using the computer programming language Python to split the debate transcripts into speaking sequences: for example, Harris speaks first, then Trump, then Harris, etc. Our data file thus allows us to break down the debates into “speech acts,” where each act is a candidate’s speaking sequence.

We entered this data file into a text analysis software program and measured each speech act on four psychological variables.

Self-reference, opponent reference, third-party reference, geopolitical war, uncertainty, candidate motivation, time focus.

A key feature of a leader’s speech is whether they focus on themselves or on others. Self-reference is typically associated with arrogance, overconfidence, or outright narcissism. In contrast, referring to others suggests that the speaker is communicating with an audience rather than reciting prepared remarks. So we next measured each candidate’s speech for self-reference, opponent-reference, and other-reference.

1. References

Trump tended to be more self-focused, as evidenced by his frequent use of the word “I.” In contrast, Harris used the word “we” more frequently, indicating an emphasis on collective responsibility. This asymmetry indicates that Trump values ​​individual agency and Harris leans toward a more collective-oriented approach.

Harris often addressed Trump directly, suggesting she was trying to have a more personal and direct conversation. In contrast, Trump avoided addressing Harris directly, instead referring to her in the third person or addressing the audience in a broader sense. Interestingly, in the June 27, 2024 Trump-Biden debate, Trump said “Biden” twice and “Joe” three times.

Trump’s speech “anonymized” Harris and distanced her from the direct confrontation, suggesting that Harris sought a direct exchange. The dynamics of the debate indicated Harris’ intention to have a personal conversation with Trump, which Trump eschewed in favor of a more public discussion.

2. Geopolitical War

This presidential campaign has been marked by geopolitical instability due to the wars between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas, so we measured how frequently candidates mentioned geopolitical wars.

Trump mentioned war and conflict-related topics much more frequently than Harris, indicating that the debate focused on discussing military and conflict issues.

Trump has mentioned Russia more frequently than Harris, suggesting he is more focused on geopolitical issues related to Russia, but both candidates have discussed Ukraine at a similar level, indicating a shared interest in the issue.

Both candidates mentioned Israel frequently, indicating its importance to both. Hamas and Iran were mentioned relatively little, with Trump mentioning Iran slightly more. Neither candidate mentioned Palestine, suggesting it was not a primary focus for either candidate during the debate.

3. Uncertainty

Both candidates used relatively similar levels of hesitation, but Trump tended to be slightly more uncertain.

This suggests that while neither candidate was overly hesitant in their statements, Trump displayed a slightly higher degree of caution and ambiguity in his speech than Harris.

4. Motivation

Psychological research suggests that people generally have three motivations: affiliation, achievement, and power. Therefore, we compared the two candidates’ use of affiliation-oriented words, achievement-oriented words, and power-oriented words.

Harris used more affiliation language than Trump, suggesting she spoke more frequently about group identity and a sense of belonging than Trump.

Neither candidate mentioned performance-related terms very often, but Harris did so at a slightly higher level, suggesting a subtle focus on her own accomplishments.

Harris uses more power-related language than Trump, suggesting she places greater emphasis on control, authority and influence in her speeches.

5. Focus: Past, present, future

While Trump had a strong focus on the past and future, frequently referring to past accomplishments and future plans, Harris focused more on current issues, emphasizing ongoing challenges and current actions.

The difference suggests that while Trump tends to frame his rhetoric around what he has done and what he will do next, Harris centers her arguments around what is happening now and immediate needs.

Persuade others

Communicators use language to influence others, especially during elections, when candidates try to persuade undecided voters to vote while at the same time reinforcing the opinions of those who have already made up their minds.

Language reveals personality traits of the communicator and serves as evidence for voters to determine which candidate aligns with their interests and values.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.