|
· 7% are the words,
· 38% is the way the words are said (paraverbals) and
· 55% of the communication is non-verbal (body language)
WRONG!
In fact, just this week, after imparting the misconception with my Level 1 class, one of my students heard a talk where the speaker cited these statistics. When I hear them, I immediately become suspect of this person’s ability to teach communication.
Not so Simple
Let me set the record straight for all you speakers out there and listeners. These often yet misquoted, out-of-context figures came out of the work of Albert Mehrabian, specifically, “Silent Messages.” Beginning the in 1960’s Mehrabian, a Professor Emeritus of Psychology at UCLA, has been known for his pioneering work in the field of nonverbal communication (body language).
His experiments helped identify nonverbal and subtle ways in which a person conveys like-dislike, power and leadership, discomfort and insecurity, social attractiveness, or persuasiveness. Mehrabian's research provides the basis for the widely misquoted and often much over-simplified statistic for the effectiveness of spoken communications.
Feelings, Ambiguity and Conflict
It is important to understand the context of Mehrabian findings. At a minimum, the formula applies to communications of feelings and attitudes (like-dislike) , not simple communication, ambiguity or incongruence.
Here is the oversimplification of the true statistics:
· 7% of meaning in the words that are spoken.
· 38% of meaning is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
· 55% of meaning is in facial expression.
Mehrabian did not intend the statistic to be used or applied freely to all communications and meaning.
From Professors Mehrabian’s website:
“Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking
Please note that this and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like-dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable. Also see references 286 and 305 in Silent Messages -- these are the original sources of my findings”
For example, the spoken instruction,
"Fire! Evacuate the building!”
has 100% meaning in the words alone: “There is a fire and get out now!”
The tone and body language might additionally convey urgency in meaning. You don’t need a body language expert to give you the full meaning of the communication. You have it all in the words.
In autocratic environments, such as the armed forces, there is no need to discuss emotional attitudes and feelings. Mehrabian's theory and its implications are not especially applicable The soldier does as the officer dictates without any discussion.
The value of Mehrabian's theory relates to communications where emotional content is significant, and the need to understand it properly is great. Or where the words are ambiguous or where there is a conflict (incongruity) between the words a person uses and the non-verbals and tone (one of a class known as paraverbals). Example, saying “yes” and shaking your head “no.” People tend to rely more on the non-verbals to evaluate the emotional state of the person speaking when there is ambiguity or conflilct between the channels
This is applicable in management and business, where motivation and attitude have a crucial effect on outcomes.
Meaning and Spoken Communication.
When interpreting meaning as the listener or convey meaning as a speaker, the Mehrabian model is important but context of the communication needs to be considered. In Meharbian’s model, 93% of the meaning is inferred by nonverbal language but you cannot use it in as a general communication rule. Also take into consideration that the research involved only spoken communication.
In many instances, 100% of the words are used to convey meaning, such as in contracts, deeds and legal documents or signs, such as NO SMOKING or RESTROOMS. No attitude or emotional content is present. Books also rely on words for 100% of the communication.
So the next time you hear a speaker misquote these statistics, you can do a number of things.
1. Do nothing; just consider them ignorant and they didn’t do their homework. When I hear this from a speaker I know they heard or read about it without doing any research and thought it was impactful and decided to use it.
2. Mention to them privately that they might want to check out Mehrabian’s studies before using the statistics again. Or send them to my blog off my website.
3. Challenge them in front of their audience. Make them look foolish.
I suggest using number 2. You’ll be doing them a favor.
Posts
