Hi,
I'm
Robert
McGee.
I'm
an
Associate
Professor
of
Integrated
Marketing
and
Communication
at
the
University
of
Mississippi,
also
known
as
Om
iss.
What
I
have
today
is
a
demonstration
of
a
teaching
exercise
I
use
with
students.
The
title
of
the
presentation
is
called
Communication
style
and
political
campaigns,
promoting
a
personal
connection
with
an
audience.
The
question
is,
do
some
presidential
candidates
use
the
first
person
or
the
second
person
more
than
others
during
their
tweets
on
Twitter?
This
is
an
important
question
because
we
want
to
form
a
personal
connection
between
a
candidate
and
an
audience.
One
way
they
can
do
that
is
by
the
use
of
language
in
their
social
media.
The
students
manually
coded
tweets
during
one
week
of
the
presidential
primary
season
in
2016.
They
recorded
every
tweet
that
was
issued
by
all
19
or
17
presidential
candidates
at
this
time.
What
we're
going
to
demonstrate
today
is
how
we
can
test
the
probability
of
a
distribution
by
using
the
grouping
variable
by.
The
first
thing
we
have
after
we
recorded
1,107
tweets,
the
first
thing
we're
going
to
test
is
whether
the
use
of
first
person
varies
by
party.
This
is
a
typical
ChiSquare
test.
It's
two
levels:
political
party,
Democrat
versus
Republican,
and
first
person
is
either
present
or
absent
in
the
tweet.
You
can
see
the
test
of
the
relationship
there.
The
likelihood
ratio
is
significant.
You
can
look
at
the
graph
which
shows
us
that
Democrats
typically
used
first
person
a
little
more
often
than
Republicans,
and
it
was
a
significant
difference.
Now
let's
get
on
to
the
second
person.
You
can
do
the
same
thing.
Look
at
the
candidate
and
the
use
or
presence
or
absence
of
a
second
person
in
the
tweet.
You'll
see
also
that
it's
a
significant
relationship.
The
likelihood
ratio,
the
value
is
83.7
and
it
is
significant.
Then
you
look
at
the
graph
and
you
see
it
well.
Some
people
obviously
used
the
second
person
more
than
others,
but
which
ones
were
really
different
from
the
others?
You
can
look
at
the
contingency
table,
and
in
the
contingency
table,
you
look
across
the
rows,
you'll
see
how
often
each
candidate
used
the
second
person.
Like
Ben
Carson
used
it
4%
of
the
time
of
his
tweets.
Chris
Christy
used
it
about
25,
26%
of
the
time
in
his
tweets
and
so
on.
We
see
Hillary
Clinton
use
the
second
person
about
16
or
17%
of
the
time
in
her
tweets
during
that
week.
But
what
we
want
to
be
able
to
do
is
test
that
specific
probability
or
the
probability
of
that
distribution.
It
is
Hillary
Clinton's
distribution
of
17%
and
83%
really
different
from
the
overall
average
of
all
the
political
candidates.
If
you
look
at
the
bottom
of
the
contingency
table,
you'll
see
that
the
distribution
really
was
80%
and
20%.
But
you
can
also
find
this
information
by
distribution.
Look
at
Analyze,
then
Distribution,
and
we
put
the
variable
in
the
Y
box
and
hit
Okay.
You'll
see
the
frequencies
or
the
probability
the
distribution
is
80
and
20.
So
80%,
19.9%,
I
roughly
put
it
at
80%
and
20%.
What
we
want
to
know
is
if
Hillary
Clinton
and
other
candidates
use
the
second
person
more
or
less
than
this
average.
We're
not
looking
at
a
50/50
test,
we're
looking
at
an
80
versus
20
test.
To
do
this,
we
are
going
to
use
the
By box
or
the
By field.
To
subdivide
this
distribution
by
each
candidate,
we're
going
to
put
the
variable
candidate
in
the
By box.
We
still
have
our
dependent
variable
in
the
Y
box,
the
use
of
the
second
person,
but
we're
going
to
subdivide
it
by
the
variable
candidate,
which
will
produce
a
unique
or
individual
tests
for
each
one
of
the
candidates.
When
you
look
at
this,
you'll
get
a
result
for
each
candidate.
For
example,
Ben
Carson
first,
and
then
Chris
Christy
second,
and
so
on
for
each
one
of
the
candidates.
It'll
tell
us
the
same
information
that
we
have
in
the
contingency
table
with
the
little
graph.
But
what
we
want
to
know
is
if
this
distribution
is
different
from
the
80-20
distribution
that
we
have
for
all
of
the
candidates
overall.
To
do
this,
we
look
at
the
person
that
we're
interested
in,
in
this
case,
Hillary
Clinton,
and
we
see
that
the
probability
of
the
distribution
is
83
and
17%.
We
go
up
to
where
it
says
second
person,
the
name
of
the
variable,
and
click
on
the
drop-down
menu,
the
red
triangle,
and
we
find
the
command
test
probabilities.
We're
going
to
click
on
test
probabilities
and
a
new
dialog
box
opens
up.
This
dialog
box
lets
us
establish
the
own
benchmark
that
we
want
to
use.
Rather
than
testing
it
against
50/50,
we're
going
to
test
it
by
against
80
and
20.
I
type
in
0.8
and
0.2
because
that's
what
we're
testing.
I
leave
the
setting
at
a
two-tailed
test.
I
don't
know
if
it's
going
to
be
higher
or
lower
than
80,
20
when
I
test
these
distributions.
I'm
going
to
leave
it
as
a
two-tailed
test.
But
I
put
in
my
benchmark
of
80%
and
20%,
which
I
got
from
the
contingency
table
or
from
the
overall
distribution
of
the
use
of
second
person.
Then
we
click
done.
Here's
what
we
have.
This
is
part
of
the
results.
You'll
see
that
she
had
96
tweets.
Of
those,
83%
did
not
have
the
second
person,
17%
did
have
second
person,
and
we're
testing
it
against
the
distribution
of
80/20.
The
likelihood
ratio
or
the
ChiSquare
value
is
0.69
and
the
P
value
is
not
significant.
Her
use
of
the
second
person
did
not
vary
significantly
from
the
overall
group
average
of
80/20.
Let's
try
somebody
else.
We
do
the
same
thing.
This
time
we'll
do
it
for
Bernie
Sanders.
He
had
150
tweets
that
week.
You'll
see
that
he
used
the
second
person
only
about
5%
of
the
time.
We
test
that
against
the
80/20
distribution
of
the
overall
group
of
politicians,
and
we
see
that
the
ChiSquare
is
significant
it's
29.7
or
29.8%,
and
the
P
value
is
less
than
0.0001.
So
yes,
his
distribution
or
his
use
of
the
second
person
significantly
varied,
but
in
this
case
it
was
significantly
less,
only
5%
compared
to
the
overall
average
of
20%.
It's
significantly
less
for
him.
Let's
try
someone
else.
Marco
Rubio
was
a
presidential
candidate
in
2016,
and
he
uses
the
second
person
about
24%
of
the
time.
We
test
that
again
against
the
80/20
percentage,
and
we
see
that
his
ChiSquare
value
for
this
test
is
0.88,
and
it
is
not
significantly
different
from
the
overall
average.
A
distribution
of
20
and
80%.
His
use
of
the
second
person
did
not
vary
between
his
tweets
versus
the
overall
average
of
all
the
candidates.
We'll
look
at
another
one.
Here's
Donald
Trump.
He
had
105
tweets
during
that
week,
and
you
see
that
he
used
second
person
about
30%
of
the
time,
which
means
about
30%
of
the
time
he
was
saying
you
or
you
all
or
some
form
of
that
second
person
in
his
tweets.
We
want
to
test
that
against
a
distribution
of
80
and
20%.
The
likelihood
ratio
is
significant.
The
ChiSquare
value
is
6.4,
almost
6.5,
and
the
P
value
or
the
significance
level
is
0.01.
You
see
here
the
test
shows
that
or
suggests
that
he
used
the
second
person
more
often
than
most
of
the
candidates
who
were
running
during
the
primary
season
in
January
2016.
This
is
a
way
that
we
can
use
to
test
each
one
of
those
rows.
At
the
beginning
of
the
2016
primary
season,
we
see
that
Hillary
Clinton
and
Marco
Rubio
used
second
person
to
do
out
as
much
as
everybody
else
did
in
the
electoral
season.
Bernie
Sanders
used
the
second
person
significantly
less,
and
Donald
Trump
used
the
second
person
significantly
more.
This
is
a
way
to
do
a
follow-up
test
on
a
Chi
Square
when
you
need
to
test
the
distribution
of
individual
rows.
You
can
do
this
using
the
Buy
button.
You
use
this
to
subdivide.
The
option
to
test
the
probability
of
a
distribution
allows
us
to
set
a
benchmark
or
comparison
or
reference
group
to
something
other
than
50/50
or
generally
whatever
we
might
be
looking
at.
In
this
case,
we
set
it
to
80/20.
This
is
a
way
to
do
follow-up
tests
on
a
significant
Chi
Square
when
you
can
test
the
probability
of
a
distribution.
I'm
Robert
McGee
at
the
University
of
Mississippi,
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
there's
my
email
address,
feel
free
to
reach
out.
Thank
you
very
much.
