Dominance Detection in Meetings Using Easily Obtainable Features

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3869)


We show that, using a Support Vector Machine classifier, it is possible to determine with a 75% success rate who dominated a particular meeting on the basis of a few basic features. We discuss the corpus we have used, the way we had people judge dominance and the features that were used.


Goal Orientation Dominance Ranking Meeting Participant Dominance Level Neural Information Processing System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bales, R.F.: Interaction Process Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1951)Google Scholar
  2. Bales, R.F., Cohen, S.P.: SYMLOG: A System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups. The Free Press (1979)Google Scholar
  3. Blumer, A., Ehrenfeucht, A., Haussler, D., Marmuthh, M.K.: Occam’s razor. In: Information Processing Letters, 24th edn., pp. 377–380 (1987)Google Scholar
  4. Edwards, J.A.: Transcription in Discourse. In: Handbook of Discourse, pp. 321–348. Blackwell Publishers, Mass (2001)Google Scholar
  5. Ellis, C(S.), Barthelmess, P.: The Neem dream. In: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Diversity in computing, pp. 23–29. ACM Press, New York (2003) ISBN 1-58113-790-7Google Scholar
  6. Ellyson, Dovidio: Power, Dominance, an Nonverbal Behavior. Springer, Heidelberg, (1985) Google Scholar
  7. Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. In: Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. Academic Press, London (1975)Google Scholar
  8. Hellriegel, D., Slocum Jr., J.W., Woodman, R.W.: Organizational Behavior, 7th edn. West publising company (1995)Google Scholar
  9. Hoffmann, L.R.: Applying experimental research on group problem solving to organizations. Journal of applied behavioral science 15, 375–391 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jovanovic, N., Op den Akker, R., Nijholt, A.: A corpus for studying addressing behavior in multi-party dialogues. In: Proc. of The sixth SigDial conference on Discourse and Dialogue (2005)Google Scholar
  11. Leffler, A., Gillespie, D.L., Conaty, C.: The effects of status differentiation on nonverbal behaviour. Social Psychology Quarterly 45(3), 151–161 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moore, J., Kronenthal, M., Ashby, S.: Guidelines for AMI speech transcriptions. Technical report, IDIAP, Univ. of Edinburgh (February 2005)Google Scholar
  13. Ohsawa, Y., Matsumura, N., Ishizuka, M.: Influence diffusion model in text-based communication. In: Proc. of The eleventh world wide web conference (2002) ISBN 1-880672-20-0Google Scholar
  14. Reidsma, D., Rienks, R., Jovanovic, N.: Meeting modelling in the context of multimodal research. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Machine Learning and Multimodal Interaction (2004)Google Scholar
  15. Rienks, R., Nijholt, A., Reidsma, D.: Meetings and Meeting support in ambient intelligence. In: Ambient Intelligence, Wireless Networking, Ubiquitous Computing, Artech House, Norwood, MA, USA (2005) (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Tannen, D.: Interpreting Interruption in Conversation. In: Gender and Discourse, pp. 53–83. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  17. West, C., Zimmerman, D.H.: Small Insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unaquainted persons. In: Language, Gender and Society, pp. 103–117. Newbury House (1983)Google Scholar
  18. Zhang, D., Gatica-Perez, D., Bengio, S., Roy, D.: Learning influence among interacting markov chains. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 18 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Media Interaction (HMI)University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations