It has to be the most publicised communication myth! On many training courses, and in books on communication skills, you will hear/read that when we communicate:

• 7% of meaning is in the words that are spoken.

• 38% of meaning is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).

• 55% of meaning is in the body language.

Albert Mehrabian

If the trainer/author knows the origin of these figures, they will attribute them to Albert Mehrabian. However, even a brief search via Google will quickly reveal that whilst this information is widespread, it is in fact a communication myth.

Mehrabian’s Research and the Communication Myth

All Mehrabian’s research showed was that in situations where there is an incongruence between words and expression, and where the message has an emotional content and context, then in his study, people tended to believe the expression they saw, not the words spoken.

Their interpretation was as follows:

• 7% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes was in the words that are spoken.

• 38% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes was paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).

• 55% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes was in facial expression.

Interestingly, with regards to the 55% of the message, it was not even whole body language. The research subjects were shown a head shot photo of the speaker. ANd yet the communication myth persists.

What is more, as Mehrabian points out when reviewing the study in his book (1), there are other more significant factors, such as the relationship between the communicator and the receiver that will affect how meaning is deduced, and that these factors can easily override the 7/38/55 split.

Flaws in the Study

There are also problems with the study itself; it is based on the response of only 37 female, University of California, psychology undergraduates, hardly a representative sample in either number or background! And the 7/38/55 formula that people quote is not even derived from a single uniform study looking at the three types of responses; rather it is derived from combining the results of two studies – one that compared single words to vocal tone, the other that compared facial cues to vocal tone. No study was carried out to complete the triangle, comparing single words with facial expressions.

Why is this Communication Myth so Prevalent?

What I find surprising is that many writers (eg http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/12/12-1332.html, and http://resourcemagazine.co.uk/acatalog/lapakko.pdf) have tried to debunk this communication myth with little success – why is it so persistent?

Leaving the final word with Mehrabian himself: “My findings are often misquoted. Please remember that all my findings on inconsistent or redundant communication deal with communications of feelings and attitudes. This is the realm within which they are applicable. Clearly it is absurd to imply or suggest that the verbal portion of all communication constitutes only 7% of the message. Suppose I wanted to tell you that the eraser you are looking for is in the second right-hand drawer of the desk in my third floor office. How could anyone contend that the verbal part of this message is only 7% of the message? Instead and more accurately, the verbal part is nearly 100% of the message. Again, anytime we communicate abstract relationships, clearly 100% of the entire communication is verbal.”

(1) Mehrabian A, “Silent Messages” — A Primer of Nonverbal Communication (Body Language) for the General Audience, 1981, Wadsworth Publishing Co

Is there another widespread communication myth, or more generally, training fallacy, that you are aware of?