We too often believe what we consume without giving it a second thought. And that’s a problem. Let’s see an example: The 55% – 38% – 7%, aka Mehrabian model.
The Mehrabian model
I’ve heard about this model on many trainings as a participant and read many posts and articles. Nearly all of them presented the model the following way: whenever you communicate, 55% of your message is conveyed through your body language, 38% through the tone of your voice, and only 7% through the words you say.
A general reaction to this is: “wow, I wouldn’t have thought so.”
Something similar happens when I bring the model up in my trainings. Most people take it for granted (the trainer says so therefore it must be true.)
Think of a theoretical physicist’s Ph.D. defense. Could it be the case that the candidate’s words will constitute a mere 7% of the message, while failure or success will mostly depend on their body language?
The Mehrabian model – limitations
This model is not valid for communication in general. If you dig deeper, you will find that Albert Mehrabian’s model is misunderstood and misused. He formulated the 55-38-7 rule based on two experiments he and his colleagues conducted in 1967. The experiments focused on specific scenarios, namely inconsistent communication and situations where feelings and attitudes were communicated (even for those cases, these are only two experiments with limited scope). As such, Mehrabian never intended this formula for general communication.
Every time I hear/see the general interpretation, it hurts. How can someone, especially communication professionals, teach this as a universal truth when if you think about it, it clearly cannot be so?
Critical thinking
What I believe happened was people found something catchy and wow-inducing that they simplified and started to spread without regard for the original meaning. Later, communication professionals perhaps learned it from senior professionals, who got it from more senior professionals while everyone believed everyone. How it came to this however, is beside the point. What’s important is how to break the cycle. And that is through critical thinking.
Think about what you learn, question everything (within reasonable limits), and make sure that the new knowledge has solid foundations.
The Mehrabian model is just one example. Who knows how many similar models from different fields are out there?
While it’s impossible to research everything you consume, you can always stop for a moment and think. 🤔
You can read about Mehrabian’s original work in Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth (1980).
You can also contact me, in which case you won’t have to read complete communication science books. 😎
The picture is of me competing at the 2018 Budapest Open international debate competition, where my words accounted for more than 7% of my message.