{"id":4738,"date":"2013-06-04T09:43:54","date_gmt":"2013-06-04T14:43:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.watermarklearning.com\/blog\/?p=4738"},"modified":"2022-08-03T13:33:53","modified_gmt":"2022-08-03T18:33:53","slug":"correcting-the-mehrabian-myth-with-words-only","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.watermarklearning.com\/blog\/correcting-the-mehrabian-myth-with-words-only\/","title":{"rendered":"Correcting the Mehrabian Myth \u2013 With Words Only"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Businesswoman<\/a><\/p>\n

True or false: Only 7% of communication meaning comes from words.<\/p>\n

If you answered True, you would have a lot of company. Perhaps you would even go on to suggest that 38% of our message is through tone, and 55% is delivered through body language.<\/p>\n

This is one of those \u201cfacts\u201d that has woven its way into what is considered common knowledge.  Unfortunately, what is sometimes common knowledge is not necessarily accurate.<\/p>\n

In fact, what\u2019s become known as the 7%-38%-55% rule only applies to very specific communication circumstances. The application of the rule to communication in general is a misinterpretation of Albert Mehrabian\u2019s research done in the 1960s that persists even with efforts on the part of Mehrabian and others to correct the misunderstanding.<\/p>\n

Mehrabian\u2019s research explored the relative importance of verbal and non-verbal messages when people were communicating specifically about their attitudes and feelings. On one of the better referenced sites<\/a> that discuss the topic, presentation trainer Olivia Mitchell explains that the intention of his research was to examine how people interpret feelings of a speaker when there is a disconnect between the word spoken and the tone and facial expressions that accompany the spoken message.<\/p>\n

His initial research that fueled the 7-38-55 myth involved senders communicating a word for the receiver to interpret multiple times, with various levels of congruence between the word spoken and the accompanying tone and facial expression. That is, someone was trying to communicate their attitude or how they felt about something and the word spoken was not consistent with their tone and facial expression, leaving the receiver with conflicting messages and having to choose between verbal and non-verbal communication to interpret the message.<\/p>\n

His research included a very specific communication purpose and a very specific communication context. It was never his intention for that narrow experiment to be generalized to all communications. Mehrabian has joined others in trying to rein in the runaway Mehrabian Myth. His website<\/a> includes the following:<\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is not to say, of course, that non-verbal communication doesn\u2019t matter. Undoubtedly, a body of literature exists that explains exactly how<\/i> much and in what circumstances it does matter. But it\u2019s important to know that the research most often quoted in support of the relative unimportance of words in communications is a misapplication of the researcher\u2019s intent and conclusions.<\/p>\n

It is also important to consider how it is that this continues to persist. It should give anyone who has contributed to the perpetuation of this myth (author included) pause for reflection as to how we could so easily evangelize an idea that fails to answer simple questions or support simple observations such a finding might inspire. For example:<\/p>\n