To be exact: that 93% of a message is transmitted by means of nonverbal cues or body language, and that only 7% depends on spoken words.
Not true of course, because this would make lipreaders much, much better communicators than blind people; it would make telephone and radio pretty much as useless for hearing people as is it is for hard-of-hearing and deaf people. And it would take all the fun out of whispering in the dark.
And what about reading: no non-verbal cues whatsoever! If you believe that 93% of communication is non-verbal, you may as well stop reading now.
The research quoted – actually: mis-quoted - in the statements about the importance of nonverbal communication, was done by Albert Mehrabian in the 1960’s. Only two studies, with a number of limitations.
Most importantly: Mehrabian wasn’t looking at ‘communication’ in general, he was looking at inconsistent communication of attitudes. Basically: if someone says a positive word (for instance: ‘dear’) with a negative tone of voice, what do you believe? The word, or the tone of voice? The word, or a picture of a facial expression?
In that specific experimental context – a tape recording of a single word spoken by an unknown speaker, body language shown as photographs of facial expressions and female subjects, tested in a laboratory setting - most subjects based their judgement (like – dislike) on the actual word in 7% of the cases, on tone of voice in 38% of the cases, and on facial expression in 55% of the cases. 38 + 55 = 93. So: nonverbal wins in 93% of the cases!
Yes, true, if you’re marketing nonverbal. But for the rest of us, communicating fairly consistently and not just about attitudes: the message really, truly is in the words!
Of course, nonverbal cues can help. IF the nonverbal cues are consistent with the message. Which they will usually be, when a person speaks the truth. Even then, you have to take into account what are sometimes (USA only?) called the 3 C’s of nonverbal communication:
- Context: when you interpret a nonverbal cue, you have to take the context (situation, topic) into account. Shivering may mean that someone is cold. Or scared. Or antsy. Looking away may mean that someone is bored. Or uncomfortable. Or: that he or she heard a door open, or a phone ringing.
- Clusters: you have to look at groups (clusters) of nonverbal cues. A single nonverbal cue in isolation can mean many different things. So actually, this is context too: interpret nonverbal cues in the context of other nonverbal cues. Someone is shivering? Any other cues that the person is cold, or scared, or antsy? A person looks away: any other cues that he or she is bored, or uncomfortable, or heard a sound that you missed?
- Congruence: nonverbal cues have to be consistent with each other AND with the verbal message. So basically, that’s context too. If the person says that he or she is cold, or scared or antsy AND shivers, AND you are pretty sure the person is not lying, trust the nonverbal cues!
If you are now thinking that 'reading' nonverbal cues resembles lipreading: it does! The lipreader also has to take into account the 3 C's: context, clusters, and congruence. Actually, these 3 C's are important for ALL communication.
Mehrabian’s female subjects in the ‘60s mostly believed the nonverbal cues, but they didn’t have the 3 C’s: no context, no clusters, and no congruence. And they may well have guessed wrong.
In real life: yes, use nonverbal cues to help you understand a speaker. But when cues are inconsistent or don’t match: don’t try and guess. Ask.
If you're not convinced, watch this video from YouTube. First without sound or subtitles, then with. Words carry more than 7% of the message, don't they?
Video: Busting the Mehrabian myth
No comments:
Post a Comment