Mehrabian Nights: An informative tale about (mis)communication
Martin Shovel's expose of the Mehrabian Myth has proved so popular that he has created a short animated film to illustrate his points. We've added it to his popular article, to illustrate this tall tale about communication, in which common sense is stretched to breaking point.
Here’s an urban myth about communication that’s harder to swallow than a whale. It’s one of the most influential and widely quoted statistical stories around, and it goes like this:
When someone speaks to us, only 7% of what they mean communicates itself through the words they use.
You have probably come across this figure before. It’s based on research which apparently demonstrates that most (55%) of what a speaker means is conveyed through their facial expressions and the rest (38%) is communicated through tone of voice. In one fell swoop, words are relegated to the role of bit-part players on the stage of communication. They hardly seem to matter at all.
But as with most urban myths, when you chew the story over, the alarm bells of common sense start ringing. Is it really possible that if I get lost and ask a passer-by for directions, I’ll have to work out the correct route mostly from their facial expressions and tone of voice, and not from the words they use? As Mr Spock might say: 'It’s communication, Jim, but not as we know it.'
Google the name Mehrabian and you’ll discover any number of websites eager to inform you that these statistics are based on research done by professor Albert Mehrabian. But – surprise, surprise – his research proves nothing of the kind, as he’d be the first to tell you.
The devil's in the detail
On his own website, Mehrabian expresses the results of his research in the form of an equation:
Total liking = 7% verbal liking + 38% vocal liking + 55% facial liking
He goes on to explain 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."
What the peddlers of the urban myth version of Mehrabian’s statistical story don’t make clear – or perhaps don’t know themselves – is that Mehrabian’s research was concerned with a very specific, and limited, aspect of nonverbal communication – it’s not about communication in general. His work relates only to inconsistent messages about feelings and attitudes, that is, face-to-face exchanges in which the meaning of what we say is contradicted by our body language and tone of voice.
Mixed messages
Imagine a situation in which you’ve had a disagreement with a colleague but they insist they’re not annoyed with you despite the fact that they’ve got their arms tightly crossed, their head is turned away from you, they avoid eye contact and they deliver their words through clenched teeth.
Or you tell a friend a joke and they respond with a stony face but tell you they think your joke is really funny. Chances are you’ll be more influenced by their impassive look than their encouraging words – and you won’t be telling that joke again in a hurry!
As a result of his experiments, Mehrabian concluded that when we’re faced with a mixed message like the ones above, we’re much more likely to believe that the real meaning is contained in the nonverbal signals the person is giving off, rather than in the words they’re saying. His famous statistic is his attempt to express this kind of experience in the form of an equation.
But – and this is the crucial point – we must not lose sight of the fact that Mehrabian’s statistic only makes sense when applied to the very narrow range of communicative experience that he was investigating, i.e. the ambiguous expression of feelings and attitudes. The attempt to apply it to all face-to-face communications is both wrong and ridiculous.
The appeal of the urban myth
So why has the distorted version of Mehrabian’s statistical story been so eagerly embraced? Well a large part of its appeal – as with other urban myths – is that its message is simple, credible and, above all, surprising. It belittles the power of words and, in an instant, it turns everything we think we know about communication on its head. Could this be why so much current thinking about presentation skills exaggerates the significance of the finer points of delivery while underplaying the fundamental importance of getting the words right?
We should always bear in mind that words are the main ingredient of presentations, talks and speeches. But they have to be the right words, used in the right way, by the right person, at the right time. So maybe it’s no wonder that many of us would rather embrace the false comfort of a spurious statistic than face up to the creative challenge of trying to discover those right words.
Martin Shovel is co-director of CreativityWorks, a company that specializes in helping organisations and individuals get their message across more effectively. Find out more by visiting www.creativityworks.net
This feature was first published on site in June 2008 and was one of best read features last year.
- 21419 reads
- login or register to post comments
- Add to a social bookmarking site
I could never believe it either
Being a wordsmith I could never quite believe this either so I'm really glad to see it de-bunked. When teaching I did stress using the 'right' words combined with appropriate body language so maybe I just automatically went for the correct version of the stats!
Well done.
Quite so. For years it has been one of the most irritating, idiotic bits of second-hand rent-a-trainer nonsense around. When, as occasionally happens, a colleague lets it slip, I prescribe a course of Erving Goffman and J. L. Austin, which, like a course of antibiotics, must be taken to the end.
There should be, there may be, a name for these things.
Well done!
In its own way, this article does exactly what it claims has made the "Mehrabian formula" so appealing - it has turned common thinking onto its head and well done for doing so. Whilst taking sessions on "Giving Presentations" with numerous groups I have always requested groups to treat the figures with a degree of scepticism, as phraseology is crucial (in my opinion)but have never done the smart thing and dug out the research to check. Thanks to this article, now I will.
At last
Thanks for this, I understood all of it without seeing your face or hearing the tone of your voice. You have done us a great service of getting us back to the original research and the right message.
Thanks for the correction
Martin, Thank you so much for correcting a community that really should know better. I have not read the original research but it is also my understanding that the sample size was 12 and it was drawn from a group of nurses and related to communication when it was being miss-understood as you state in your article “inconstant messages”
Thanks for correcting a profession that should not be making such large errors or drawing their own conclusions from others work, with out referring to the original text.
Greater problem here
Agreed - and certainly we've been very careful to note the over-extended nature of much 'quoted' Mehrabian research.
I think this is symptomatic of a greater problem - which is that too many trainers don't bother to verify original research, ask permission of the originator/owner or generally check things out. We need to get our house in order on this to be credible.
Andie
Andie Hemming
yes and no
Martin's article is excellent in providing a primer to this work; the first time I saw these fugures I was so sceptical that I checked them up and consequently ignored them for several years. Until I saw them used by a wonderful trainer, (now sadly gone to the big flipchart in the sky)who used them to relate to the "impression that is left behind after your "communication"". That is quite accurate and very much more concerning to the thoughtful communicator.
It isn't just the training community who need educating; the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter card TV advert!
Martin asks
"Could this be why so much current thinking about presentation skills exaggerates the significance of the finer points of delivery while underplaying the fundamental importance of getting the words right?".....I still think that this is a valid focus....I've seen many a manager, perfectly capable of choosing the appropriate words, who then either puts the audience to sleep or leaves them utterly confused because all the preparation was on the words, not the overall message or the impression left afterwards!
Rus Slater
www.coach-and-courses.com
Case proved?
Whilst agreeing with Martin about the widespread misuse of the results of Albert Mehrabian’s research (which I’ve also read), I would be more cautious than he in his conclusions. Exploding this myth? Well, what Martin has done is point out how some people have misused the findings of a very specific piece of research. He has neither proved that words are more important when it comes to presentations, nor if it comes down to it, has he disproved the conclusions people have drawn about the predominant importance of delivery. This is a complex question which probably has many answers, dependent on the nature of particular circumstances. I personally think that persuasive language is only really effective when coupled with inspired delivery.
Nearly right - but not the whole truth
Martin's explanation is nearly right. There is, in fact, one further qualification - that the results only apply in "non-extreme cases". Where the contention becomes too great we generally tend to revert to our "normal" weighting of the signals in the three channels.
HOWEVER
1. Mehrabian's finding do NOT exist in a vacuum. Professor Argyle of Oxford U. did some very similar studies about three years after Professor Mehrabian - and got pretty much the same results.
2. Professor Robert Rosenthal has done a series of studies in which the subjects could see a teacher, and hear his/her voice - but the voice was distorted in such a way that the subjects could hear the vocal characteristics, but could discern what was being said.
Rather than write a lengthy post may I refer readers to this FAQ on my website, which details Mehrabian's work, along with several other relevant studies, including Rosenthal's "thin slices" and the fascinating "Dr Fox" experiment.
Be well
Andy B.
A broader view of leadership communication
Thank you, Martin, for putting this often quoted research in its proper context.
At the same time, I was interested to see that you finished by relating the earlier points in your article to presentations, talks and speeches - all of which are examples of formal structured, communication.
In contrast, as your earlier examples implied, most of the communication that takes place in organisations is through everyday conversations and interactions (much of it peer-to-peer).
If managers want to communicate effectively here, they need to move beyond the message passing focus of set-piece events. Instead their attention needs to move towards the joint sense making and relationship building that characterises everyday organisational life. This means 'tuning-in' to the themes that are organising these ongoing conversational interactions and seeking to shift the content and patterns of conversation in organisationally beneficial ways. As the conversations change, so does the organisation.
Here, words have a critically important part to play - as does the congruence between these and the 'hidden messages' that managers unavoidably send (as role models) through their tone of voice, facial expressions and other observed behaviours.
A lightbulb moment
It's appropriate that Martin's article has a lightbulb in one of the graphics.
This has served as a reminder to me that the stats are less important than making sure that we take the time to think about all three aspects.
It is enough to remind people of this on Communication and Presentation Skills courses, rather than having to dwell on arbitrary percentages which, as others have rightly pointed out, can lead people to assume that verbal comms are less important than the other two.
Tell it to the NLP community!
Martin you are quite correct to bring this flawed assumption to a wider audience. I have had the misfortune to sit in audiences of some quite well known gurus who have also spouted the statistic as gospel. Even after I gave one of them the actual research they continued to use it. So does it matter if it is not true 100% of the time, for it is surely true in some circumstances.
For me yes it does. When I teach communications skills I prefer to use a slide for tonality words and body language as a three legged stool. Each is important, but most important of all is the message that you are trying to convey, which I portray on the seat of the stool.
When we are clear about our message then the three parts will blend together quite naturaly. If words were only 7% then books would be the poorest way to convey anything and yet they have brought riches to our world. When we read we imagine our own tonal qualities and body language that are portrayed by the words. However watching a mime artist it is a little more difficult to understand the story; and just grunts and squeaks - well that is harder still. Words are the cornerstone of any communication so lets rejoice in getting this myth blown out of the water once and for all.
Mehrabian Nights
There has long been the argument about what Mr Mehrabian said/meant. As somebody who regaularly delivers presentation skills training, I always mention the 3 annoying numbers of 7+38+55. Then I demonstrate poor words/content, poor tonal variety and contradictory body language.
I then demonstrate how it can be done more effectively. We always agree that the three elements are vitally important to an effective communication, the numbers themselves are of no helpful significance.
Regards Vince
Could be...
but then again, we are purely talking about face to face communication, and rather informal communication.
What is skipped out here is the fact that we understand communication through our preferred channels: visual, kinetic, and auditory. someone who is a visual person will tend to rely to a great extent on body language. Even when reading, they will tend to visualize how body language and tonality would be. on the other hand, someone who's more auditory would prefer to focus on the words...
so really, it's not about the numbers, but about the context. and in face to face communication, especially daily interactions, mixed messages take up a big part... which makes Mehrabian's theory common sense.
Mehrabian Myth Misnomer
Obviously seems to have struck a chord - revealing a pet hate of many trainers. But I think it's a total misnomer to call it a Mehrabian Myth. The whole point of the statistic is that it refers to communicating feelings and emotions. May be it's a myth if you're removing the statistic from all it's context, but then there are countless statistics that are poorly contextualised doing the rounds in training rooms round the country. To imply the myth has something to do with Mehrabian himself seems a bit disingenuous, a pretty hollow alliteration.
Understanding communication in the round is fundamental, and the first step to this is understanding how your own feelings and emotions affect the way you communicate. Most people I've seen quote this statistic, are essentially making this general point. This remains a valid point, even despite it now being interpreted in thousands of different ways, so many years on from Mehrabian's original research.
More than words...
While I'm in total agreement that the Merhabian study doesn't support the legend that has grown round it, and I wholeheartedly support the idea that words are important, I'd suggest you try this experiment:
Stand outside the venue in which someone is making a presentation, a speech or even doing stand-up. Ask those leaving after the event for their impressions. Then ask them what was said. They'll give you paraphrasing of some of the things said, and they'll give you interpretations of what's been delivered, but they will not generally be able to repeat what has been said beyond maybe a few soundbites.
Words are indeed vital to the presentation, but what is retained of the presentation is the message, which is delivered by all available means, including of course the vocal performance and the non-verbal.
Once they have done their job, words disappear...but the message can stay in the minds of an audience for ever.
Steve Thomson
www.Profile-Training.com