Mehrabian
Mehrabian is often quoted as saying that the meaning of a message is communicated by:
- Your words 7%
- Your tone of voice 38%
- Your body language 55%.
This interpretation of Mehrabian has been comprehensively debunked many times, but still it persists. In this post, I’m going to:
- Describe the experiments Mehrabian carried out, and
- Identify the limitations of Mehrabian’s research
Mehrabian’s experiments
The Mehrabian formula comes from two studies in nonverbal communication carried out by Mehrabian and two colleagues in 1967.
To summarize, Mehrabian’s studies asked participants to judge the feelings of a speaker by listening to a recording of a single word spoken in different tones of voice.
Yes, one single word.
In the first study, the participants had to rate the feelings of the speaker after listening to each of nine different words. The words spoken were often inconsistent with the tone of voice used. For example, the word “brute” spoken in a positive tone. Each time they had to make a rating just on the single word they had listened to.
In the second study, only one word was used. It was chosen to be as neutral as possible: the word was “maybe”. They listened to a recording of the word “maybe” said in different tones and at the same time were shown photos of different facial expressions.
It’s from these experiments that Mehrabian suggested – but did not prove – the formula. If you’d like more detail, I’ve described the experiments in more depth on this page: Mehrabian’s studies in nonverbal communication.
The limitations of Mehrabian’s formula
Mehrabian has himself attempted to limit the application of this formula:
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.
In a personal email to Max Atkinson, reproduced in Max’s book “Lend me your Ears” Albert Mehrabian said:
I am obviously uncomfortable about misquotes of my work. From the very beginning I have tried to give people the correct limitations of my findings. Unfortunately the field of self-styled ‘corporate image consultants’ or ‘leadership consultants’ has numerous practitioners with very little psychological expertise. (31 October 2002)
So if we limit the formula to the specific conditions of the experiments, it is only applicable if:
- a speaker is using only one word,
- their tone of voice is inconsistent with the meaning of the word, and
- the judgement being made is about the feelings of the speaker.
In other words, in the real world, Mehrabian’s formula is almost never applicable.
What do other researchers say
Mehrabian’s findings were frequently discussed in the psychological literature on nonverbal communication through the 1970s and 1980s. Researchers have made the following critiques of the methodology of his studies:
- They only used two or three people to do the speaking for the experiments.
- They take no account of the extent to which the speakers could produce the required tone of voice.
- They were artificial situations with no context.
- The communication model on which they were based, has now been shown to be too simple.
- They take no account of the characteristics of the observers making the judgements.
- The purpose of the experiments was not hidden from the participants.
For more detail on these critiques go to Mehrabian’s studies in nonverbal communication and scroll down.
The importance of delivery
I’m not saying that speech delivery is unimportant – it is. I think it can have a large impact on the credibility and persuasiveness of a speaker. I also consider content to be critical to credibility and persuasiveness. But I don’t think that their respective influences can be reduced to a formula.
Campaign to “Stop the Mehrabian Myth”
The main group of people who have propagated the Mehrabian myth are presentation trainers, public speaking coaches and other communications consultants. As a presentation trainer, I’m embarrassed that these figures are still being trotted out on a regular basis, when there is no substance to their real-world application. It’s damaging to the credibility of the training industry.
I’m also concerned about the persistence of the Myth because of the impact on presenters:
- The Mehrabian Myth puts unwarranted pressure on people who are nervous about speaking. They’ve been led to believe that their delivery can make or break their presentation. This is just not true. If they prepare well-organized valuable content and deliver it at least adequately they are likely to get their message across.
- The Mehrabian Myth leads some “wing-it” presenters to under-prepare their content under the misapprehension that so long as they can deliver with energy and dynamism they’ll get their message across. Again, not so.
That’s why I’m starting the “Stop the Mehrabian Myth” campaign.
Stop the spread of the myth
Many presentation trainers and public speaking coaches are doing their bit to stop the spread of the myth. These are the ones I’m aware of who have posts about it:
Lisa Braithwaite – The Truth about 7%-38%-55%
Andrew Abela – 93% of communication comes from non-verbal signs… or does it?
Joey Asher – Does what you actually say matter as much as how you look
Susan Trivers – Public speaking mistakes
John Windsor – Sacred cow tipping
Steve Denning – Dr Condoleeza Rice tells her story – form vs content
Laura Fitton – The 3Vs disease
Jeff Bailey – Everything that you know about Mehrabian’s Rule may be wrong
Max Atkinson – Body language and nonverbal communication (Max has a brilliant cartoon demonstrating the absurdity of the myth)
Jon Thomas – Mehrabian’s rule and the puzzle that is presenting (I like this way of putting it “In whatever bubble that experiment took place in, I’m sure his findings were appropriate. We don’t live in that bubble though, at least not in respect to presentations. “)
Phil Jones – Mis-use of Mehrabian statistics
Simon Raybould – My 7% rant! (But 93% of it won’t work……apparently)
Andy Smith – 7%38%55% – The facts
MJ Plebon – It is all about the story
Chris Witt – Words, tone of voice and body language reconsidered
Bob Mathers – Mehrabian’s Myth – does bullshit kill or just discredit
Michael Parker- What you say or the way you say it
Stephanie WestAllen- What is the biggest communication myth – perhaps this one?
John Turner – Verbal, Vocal, Visual: Is Mehrabian Relevant?
Presentation experts against the myth (without a current blog post):
What can you do
If you come across a blog post or article on the internet which quotes Mehrabian’s formula as if it were true, comment on the post or write an email to the author. If you don’t have time to go into detail, just refer them to this post.
When you’re speaking with colleagues, should the myth ever be quoted, speak up and let people know the Mehrabian myth is false.
Bloggers
If you’d like to be added to the list above, let me know (write a comment below, e-mail me or tweet me). If you’ve got a post I can link to, do include that.
Write a post with your views on the Mehrabian myth, and let me know so that I can link to it.
Toastmasters
Deliver a speech on the Mehrabian myth to your club.
Update: I’ve written an extra post to respond to a secondary misinterpretation of Mehrabian that has come through in the comments: The secondary misinterpretation of Mehrabian’s research
Hi Olivia,
Great article! I have been hearing “7% words” story all my professional life. The real focus for speakers should be to:
* Create excellent content,in story form
* Fix common mistakes, Uhms, Ahs,etc.
* Deliver with confidence
Lots of other things can be done, but with those basics the result will be a success. Message delivered.
Thanks
pat
Touche! Add me to the list as I’ve been preaching against this for a long time!
To his credit, Weissman did note a limitation in Mehrabian’s stats (which is quite rare), though it wasn’t with the intent of debunking them in the manner of the “Stop the Myth” campaign. I am afraid, though, that culturally we are too quick to grasp that which appears to make our point, and statistics are much too carelessly re-quoted in such an effort.
I applaud the deeper expose’ of the myth in pursuit of helping presenters improve.
Hi Roger,
Yes Weismann did note Mehrabian’s limitation but then proceeded to ignore it. The rest of the chapter then attempts to “prove” 55-38-7 by giving us a series of anecdotes. And I’ve added you to the list above. Olivia
Great article, Olivia…! Thank you. I’ll do my part to spread the word…!
One benefit of the Mehrabian study is that it opens the door to a conversation about how those three components (words, body language, tone) impact our communication, and exposes the challenges in communication when we communicate through a medium in which those components are missing (email, twitter, phone, etc.).
That said, it is amazing how often the study is used (and misinterpreted) when the misinterpretations defy common sense. If we really bought into these misinterpretations, then learning mime would be much more valuable than learning presentation skills 🙂
(Note: using emoticon to compensate for absence of body language and tone 🙂
Thanks again… Steve
Hi Steve,
Yes, the Mehrabian study is a great way to introduce the idea of the importance of nonverbal communication – no doubt part of the reason for its longevity! Olivia (love the emoticons)
Excellent, well-researched and well-written post! The “Mehrabian Myth” is a great example of a classic untruth that continues to be perpetuated simply because it makes for a good story. The fact that it consistently draws the requisite “oohs and A-ha’s” from participants makes us look like we really know our stuff (truth and accuracy be damned!).
The fact, as you so nicely point out, that this “classic study” is continuously misinterpreted, misunderstood, misconstrued, misapplied, and miscommunicated appears to be irrelevant (or unknown) to most people who reference it. It’s so ingrained in us as trainers that it’s nearly impossible to talk about Communication without reference to the classic study by the famous Dr. M. of UCLA.(Uh-oh, someone just brought up the subject of body language! I have no other choice… must… mention… Mehrabian…55-38-7, 55-38-7…)
Keep up the good work. When you’re done, let’s move on to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and misapplications of DeBono, and others…! 🙂
Todd Cherches
Liquidnet Leadership Institute
Hi Todd,
I agree with your point about the attractiveness of the figures to trainers. I think it’s one of the reasons for the persistence of the myth. I’ll look at this more in my third post in this series on why the myth is so sticky. Olivia
Olivia, thanks for taking this on and hopefully starting a movement! I’ve heard so many trainers quote this and other statistics (don’t get me started on ‘people fear public speaking more than death’) where there is no basis in legitimate, current research. They don’t bother to check their facts, content to robotically repeat the same BS over and over.
Now I’ll go read your more in-depth article!
Great to hear that some of the debunking of I did of non-verbal myths in ‘Lend Me Your Ears’ is getting wider support. There’s a great cartoon that sums it all up, which I’ll post on my blog as soon as I can dig it out. And while on the subject of modern myths in the training world, how long before a few more people wake up to the fact that there is about as much evidence behind NLP as there is for Scientology?
Thanks Olivia,
This reminds me of another statistic from the Wharton School of Business that is touted by an international training company. I have never been able to find the actual research – I think that’s because it doesn’t exist. The supposed study says that “impressions” come from words 7%, the “who” factor 43% and the “how” factor 50%.
An article worth reading on Mehrabian’s work can be found at: http://www.businessballs.com/mehrabiancommunications.htm
Hi Justin
Thanks for linking to the businessballs article on Mehrabian’s research. The author has made a strong point that the Mehrabian research should not be over-simplified and applied to all communications. However, he/she has made several misinterpretations themselves eg: including body language and assuming that the participants in the experiment were attempting to discern meaning from the communication. I think the research is even more limited than portrayed by this article.
Those Wharton School of Business studies sound suspiciously like they’ve been extrapolated from Mehrabian!
Olivia
Good post Olivia, and adds to the discussion, but I think (and feel!) it misses the mark. He is not “just plain wrong,” but too often misinterpreted.
In the 80’s I interviewed Mehrabian and wrote about him in my newsletter, and he said then as he does now – many people abuse his research. He was not investigating the ‘cognitive’ impact of the three dimensions in an absolute sense, but the trust and believability created at the feeling level in an INCONSISTENT message. I don’t think you emphasize the inconsistent message enough, and it is critical because most business messages are inconsistent. That is the significance of his research – and it is on the mark. You have to have trust to have believability, which is the critical issue, and that is determined at the feeling level.
But a comment here is too brief to respond fully – I’ll do a post on this shortly at http://www.deckerblog.com. [Update from Olivia: Bert has now published his post: The visual dominates – Mehrabian revisited. And I’ve written another post to respond to Bert’s post: The secondary misinterpretation of Mehrabian’s research].
And I don’t feel that all the negative energy to debunk Mehrabian is well placed. He is an excellent professor, researcher and writer and actually did a great service in helping people to realize there is so much more to presenting than thinking “if I say the words people will get it.”
Actually I agree with Max Atkinson – if you want to take on myths that have no basis in scientific research, it would be far more fruitful to take on NLP.
Bert
@BertDecker
(PS: If this is a second comment forgive me, the first one never showed up here.)
Hi Bert
I totally respect Mehrabian. I’m not attacking him – I am saying that the misinterpretations of his data are wrong.
Regarding your point that his experiment was about trust and believability:
The observers in the experiments were asked to judge whether the speaker liked or disliked the person they were speaking to. The observers weren’t asked whether they trusted or believed the speaker.
I think there is a difference between liking/disliking and trust and believability. For example, I might dislike a person but still trust that they mean what they say.
I agree with you about NLP. I’ve explored NLP briefly in this post http://www.speakingaboutpresenting.com/nervousness/public-speaking-fear-nlp/. As you’ll see I’m fairly scathing.
Looking forward to your post :-).
Olivia
After Bert’s comment, I want to clarify that I also am not looking to debunk Mehrabian’s work, but to point out the misinterpretation of it among speakers and trainers. I believe his work has its merits, and inconsistency in communication is indeed an issue to be addressed. But again, my issue is with the misinterpretation of the research, not the research itself. I hope that’s clear in my blog posts on the subject!
I’m cool w/misinterpreting Mehrabian.
Had he been consistent with his content, body language, & tone of voice, his message might have been clearer!
(Appreciate the irony? 😉
😉
I believe that Mehrabian’s work is very valuable. What I can’t believe is how so many people misinterpret it.
I believe that the misinterpretation sounds good and it’s shocking — “My words only matter 7%!” — that gives it impact. It (the misinterpretation) is easy to remember so it tends to be sticky. It (the misinterpretation) is actionable, “I should work on my slides more than the words I use!” People want easy; they don’t want to put work into it. Maybe the misinterpretation feeds on the laziness of most presenters and that is why so many people get it wrong. Take this to an extreme and you begin to see why the presentation world is in it’s current state.
Back to the real Mehrabian research: It all gets down to what Bert Decker says in his outstanding book “You Must Be Believed to Be Heard.” In order to be heard, you must be believed. In order to be believed your words, tone and body language must be consistent with your message. Mehrabian got that right. Those other folks didn’t.
Hi Jeff
Mehrabian’s work is valuable in that it started off a line of inquiry into the relative influences of various types of nonverbal cues in communication.
But Mehrabian’s research was not about and did not explore the effect of inconsistency between verbal and nonverbal cues on whether the speaker is believed.
I agree with you about the reasons for the misinterpretation being so persistent – it’s an interesting case study of “stickiness”.
Olivia
Finally! Thanks for pointing out that everyone’s been hiding behind the wrong numbers for far too long!
Of course, this does bring up the interesting point of how to get your message to “stick”. Yes, it does mean that words / body language /tone are all important. However, what’s even more important is that your audience is made up of people who all learn in different ways. Some are verbal learners, some visual, and some need to “feel” what you are saying.
This means that you need to cover all three bases in your talk in order to impact everyone in your audience. Not easy, but still doable…!
– Dr. Jim Anderson
The Accidental Communicator Blog
“Learn How To intimately connect with your audience in order to make an lasting impact in their lives.”
Hi Jim
Interesting that you should bring up learning styles… the science behind learning styles is not too rigorous. Check out these links:
Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic from Chris Witt
Do Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Learners Need Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Instruction? from Cognitive Scientist Daniel Willingham
and finally my own offering on the subject:
The myth of learning styles
That’s not to say, that it’s not effective to offer content in different modalities eg: verbal, visual etc, but that the reasoning for that is not that people have different learning styles. It’s that all of us learn better when information is presented in the style best suited to that information. Also experiencing it in different ways helps too.
So I agree with your conclusion – cover all your bases – but not the reasoning behind it. Olivia
Hi Olivia,
I’m glad you’re making a strong pushback against relying on the Mehrabian formula. So very many business speakers underestimate what it takes to design, write and deliver a business speech that makes a difference to their audiences–and also to themselves and their businesses. They rationalize their lack of preparation with the myth.
I’ve worked with knowledgable business speakers who are passionate about their audiences and their content but who have little natural ‘flair’ or ‘style’–yet they mesmerize their audiences time and again and motivate those audiences to take action. What makes them powerful speakers is the content–when it is great, their style barely registers.
One enemy of great speaking is settling for being good enough, and the other is “that’s what everyone else does”–meaning why should I try harder to do better?
I’m glad to be part of a community of speaking coaches who are committed to helping their clients be great for every audience, every time.
Hi Susan
Yes, one of the insidious consequences of the myth is that the less-motivated presenter has an excuse not to focus on preparing logical and valuable content. Olivia
Way to go, Olivia.
The myth is so well-ingrained that I have a fellow who delivers one of our presentation workshops who can’t “not” somehow mention it, even though we’ve had the conversation a million times and it is nowhere in out materials.
It’s as if there is mystical hold that just won’t let go of some people regardless of the evidence.
Now I’m going to have to do a post on it. I’m in.
Thanks Steve, I’ve added your name to the list. I’ll add the link to your post when you publish it. Olivia
Hi Olivia,
As usual, I completely agree with you here. I’ve seen this myth in a number of published books (including best sellers).
Like you, I find it frustrating that many “experts” of public speaking propogate this myth. Anyone that’s given more than a couple speeches knows that this is nonsense.
Keep up the battle and count me in as one of the bloggers against this myth (I’ll post on this as well).
James
Hi James, I’ve added you to the list above and I look forward to your post. Olivia
Yippee…. Olivia you’ve started my day on a high. I’ve been banging on about this for years and feeling like I’m pushing water uphill. It’s been (literally!) years since I blogged about it but you’ve done such a better job than my rant.
Thank you!
There’s a reference to NLP in the comments – and it was via an NLP ‘Master Practitioner’ that I first heard the mis-interpretation. I’m sure there are SOME good things in NLP but I must admit this started me off on a bad footing with it! 😉
Simon
Hi Olivia,
Great couple of articles – the second one in particular really brought home an important distinction. Please add me to your list of ‘stop the myth’ campaigners – I wrote a blog post about it last year: http://www.manchesternlp.com/blog/7-38-55-the-facts.html
Best wishes,
Andy Smith
Hi Andy
I’ve added you to the list in my post. Thanks for your comments about my post in your post :-). Olivia
Hi Olivia,
I’ve rather carelessly moved blog platforms (it would have saved a lot of bother if I’d started with WordPress in the first place) so my article is now at http://coachingleaders.co.uk/7-38-55-the-facts/
Best wishes,
Andy Smith
Dear Olivia,
I don’t usually write on websites but felt it important to acknowledge that your site and the level of peer debate are among the best I have come across. As a management trainer I have blown many a gasket in frustration as colleagues have trotted out the old 7/38/55 without thinking, as if statistics could explain everything on their own.
A propos the lack of critical thinking around, many years ago I attended an 8-day NLP course in London led by the great man, Bandler, himself and have to confess that I have since never used any of what I heard. I was clearly not intelligent enough to get it, or was it that the emperor simply had no clothes?
For me, the idea behind teaching is that you need to understand your material thoroughly and if you don’t, you shouldn’t be passing off the half understood stuff you pick up. A little learning is, indeed, a dangerous thing.
I’ve posted on the Myth, by the way, and quoted you – http://www.doccomms.com/blog – so does that mean I’m now one of the gang?
Kind regards,
Bob Mathers
Thank you Bob, for your comments about this site – and thank you to all my peers (including you, Bob) that do make it a stimulating place to hang out. You’re one of the gang – I’ve added the link to you post.
Look forward to hearing more from you now that you’ve contributed once! Olivia
And here’s another similarly widespread myth: folded arms = defensiveness, for more on which, see latest posting at http://maxatkinson.blogspot.com/2009/06/body-language-non-verbal-communication.html
Anyone who enjoyed the previous non-verbal communication cartoon I posted might like to know that I’ve just posted another one at http://maxatkinson.blogspot.com/2009/06/another-body-language-non-verbal_25.html – which includes further food for thought about the ‘words we actually use’ …
As a sequel to the cartoons I posted on the subject, I’ve just posted two versions of a short video from a famous Margaret Thatcher speech in 1980, along with a little test for purveyors of the Mehrabian myth (at http://maxatkinson.blogspot.com/2009/06/margaret-thatcher-body-language-and-non.html).
Thank you for this excellent post. It has been a pet peeve of mine for the longest time. It only goes to show that people read what they want to read. And they have a particular love for specifics!
Albert Mehrabian’s research has never staked this claim. It’s indeed one of the biggest misconceptions in this field… to do my tiny part in killing of this myth, I’ve stressed this misconception on my site as well. Not as well-researched as this post… but my site aims to keep things simple. And correct.
Thanks!
Hi Marjan
It’s great to have lots of people posting on this issue. In looking at your article I did pick up on another misinterpretation (http://www.simplybodylanguage.com/what-is-body-language.html) which is very easy to make. You say the research “…was about what makes people like or dislike someone, and why.” The research was about how an external observer judged whether the speaker disliked or liked the person they were speaking to.
I do agree with making things simple wherever possible, and I have struggled with how to explain the research as simply as possible. In this case, simplifying can lead to fudging important distinctions. Olivia
Hi Olivia – would it be ok if I did a summary or paraphrase of this blogpost in German on my blog (of course linking it to your entry here)?! Unluckily the Mehrabian Myth is very common among German communication coaches…
Hi Caroline – that would be fine. Olivia
I have posted about Mehrabian in the past here:
http://westallen.typepad.com/idealawg/2007/03/what_is_the_big.html
And here:
http://westallen.typepad.com/idealawg/2009/08/busting-the-mehrabian-myth-is-anyone-still-using-that-inaccurate-55387-communication-fiction.html
Hi – the man himself recently did a short interview about this very subject for the BBC. Check here.
In short he says “My work was taken out of context and can’t be generalised the way way some people have pretended.” 🙂
S
Olivia, your excellent blogs have been widely quoted and signposted in my recent discussions, e-mails, tweets and even more recent Body Language Seminar. Not altogether frivolously I wondered if the growing clan of champions might not muster under the banner of the ‘Mehrabian Knights’. We are, after all, concerned to set his research in its proper light rather than discredit it. That’s clear. So, anyone got a suitable heraldic device in mind?
One publication that I haven’t seen mentioned in discussions of the Mehrabian Myth is Psychology Today, a popular magazine targeted at non-psychologists. Mehrabian published an article in Psychology Today in 1968. I suspect this article may have had more to do with the myth getting started than his work in academic journals – after all, how many public speaking coaches read the Journal of Consulting Psychology?
Here is an excerpt from his article in Psychology Today:
“Suppose you are sitting in my office listening to me describe some research I have done on communication. I tell you that feelings are communicated less by the words a person uses than by certain nonverbal means – that, for example, the verbal part of a spoken message has considerably less effect on whether a listener feels liked or disliked than a speaker’s facial expression or tone of voice.
So far so good. But suppose I add, ‘In fact, we’ve worked out a formula that shows exactly how much each these components contributes to the effect of the message as a whole. It goes like this: Total Impact equals .07 verbal +.38 vocal + .55 facial.'”
Not only did his results reach a more general audience this way, but stated in this manner, it is easy to see how readers could have misunderstood that his research had broad implications for interpersonal communications.
Hi David
Yes, I agree with you that some of the ways that Mehrabian himself has stated his conclusions have led to the misunderstandings. In his 1972 book “Silent Messages” there’s an equation which is easy to misinterpret if you don’t grasp the context. And with your example if you were to just quote the last paragraph you have the pure form of the Mehrabian Myth!
Thanks for digging up that article.
Olivia
Hello Olivia!
I’m quoting your website in a paper. Can you tell me the year of this article? Thanks!
Hi Julieta
I published this post on 2 June 2009. Go well with writing your paper.
Olivia
Glasses can also have serious implications for eye contact with an audience, for more on which, see http://maxatkinson.blogspot.com/2009/05/eye-contact-public-speaking-and-case-of.html