THE 7%, 38%, 55% MYTH
by Dr. C. E. "Buzz" Johnson
In the remote sense that anyone in the NLP field
needs their memories
refreshed concerning the numbers in the above
title, let me briefly give
my recollection from numerous sessions. The total
message one receives
in any face to face communication is divided
into three components. The
words themselves, the tonality used in delivering
those words, and the
body language accompanying the other two.
The numbers indicate the relative weight or importance
assigned to each
of these three areas with body language receiving
the 55% figure,
tonality the 38%, and the actual words themselves
being tagged with a
paltry 7%. This strangely skewed distribution
has bothered me ever since
my introduction into this marvelous arena called
NLP.
Out of the Mist
The first reason for my puzzlement was that none
of my NLP instructors
could tell me where those figures came from.
Please do not interpret
this to mean that I had been cursed with unknown
and unknowing
fly-by-night mentors. They are all very well
known and active in the NLP
community. They are also, in my opinion, excellent
teachers. However,
when asked where I might find further information
about the research
that produced those numbers, I was vaguely referred
to a variety of well
known universities. I later drew a blank at each
of these institutions.
Secondly, if these percentages are really valid
it would mean that the
learning of foreign languages could be greatly
abbreviated. After all,
if the words only account for 7% of the meaning
of communication, we
should all be able to go to any country in the
world, and simply by
listening to the tone and carefully observing
the body language, be able
to accurately interpret 93% of their communications!
And I'll bet you
always thought that learning Chinese or Russian
would be a real stretch.
In fact, from these percentages, it appears that
you needn't even
bother. You may be better off without being encumbered
by all the
intricacies of any language. People like Leo
Buscaglia are looking
forward to the time when words will no longer
be necessary as he states
in his book Living, Loving & Learning. Since
a word such as "love" has
as many definitions as it has definers, he feels
it will be a happy day
when the world of word hang-ups is replaced by
"vibrations."
Counting on What?
I wonder how many of you have a 93% rate of accuracy
when it comes to
interpreting and understanding even your most
intimate friends and
family members? And that's with people speaking
the same official
language with its 7% impact!
It is not only the NLP community that is espousing
and apparently
believing the 7_38_55 myth. I've heard therapists
and counselors who
were unfamiliar with NLP allude to those same
numbers. There also seems
to be a widespread believe among the general
population that words are
relatively unimportant. I'm sure most of us have
heard people mid-read
with statements such as, "She didn't really mean
what she said, she
probably meant XXX instead." Or, "He may have
said that but he didn't
really mean it." Or, "It's not what you say,
but how you say it."
In NLP change work, note how carefully we re-word
statements in order to
reframe a client's personal perceptions. And
by very skillfully using
just the right hypnotic language patterns, we
are able to rapidly
enhance desired shifts in our clients' understandings
and attitudes and
beliefs. Would we need to be this meticulous
and conscientious if we
were really dealing with only 7% of a person's
awareness and
comprehension?
I was finally able to track down the source of
this myth thanks to a
professional speaker who makes his living giving
sales seminars and
workshops. And yes, the 7-38-55 was an important
part of his
presentations. He didn't know how to spell the
name of the individual
responsible for the research that originated
those numbers or which
university was involved, but he gave me a valuable
starting point by
offering me a couple of different possible pronunciations.
I think
you'll be interested in what I found.
The Study
Albert Mehrabrian, Ph.. Of UCLA was the originator
of the 7-38-55
theory. He speaks of it in two books, Silent
Messages published in 1971,
and Nonverbal Communications published in 1972.
In these two books, he
refers to research projects which were published
in various professional
journals. I will get to the journals in more
detail later, but first
let's look at some of his statements from one
of the books.
From Chapter 3 of Silent Messages we find that
the numbers 7-38-55
expressed as percentages have to do only with
what he calls the
resolution of inconsistent messages, or to put
it in NLP terms,
incongruencies. He also states that there are
very few things that can
be communicated non-verbally. He initially was
investigating liking/
disliking which he later generalized into feelings.
In speaking with him
by phone in March, 1994, he stated that his findings
and inferences were
not meant to be applied to normal communications.
They were of very
limited application.
Let me paraphrase some of his thoughts from page
134 toward the end of
that book. Clearly, it is not always possible
to substitute actions for
words and therefore, what are the limitations
of actions as instruments
of communication? If you've ever played charades,
you know that words
and language are by far the most effective way
of expressing complex and
abstract ideas. The ideas contained in Silent
Messages, and most other
books for that matter, couldn't be done with
actions. A very important
thing to remember about the differences between
words and actions is
that actions only permit the expression of a
limited set of things;
namely, primary feelings and attitudes.
The Details
Now let's examine in more detail the specifics of
a couple of his
experiments from which some people have made
some rather sweeping and
inaccurate generalizations. From the Journal
of Consulting Psychology,
1967, Vol. 31. No. 3, pg. 248-252 is a report
entitled Inference Of
Attitudes From Nonverbal Communication In Two
Channels. This study was
designed to investigate the decoding of inconsistent
and consistent
communications of attitude in facial and vocal
channels. The
experimental team found that the facial component
received approximately
3/2 the weight received by the vocal component.
You can readily see that
this roughly corresponds to the 38% and 55% figures
mentioned earlier.
You may be wondering how this study was conducted.
There was only one
word used. That word was "maybe," selected for
it's apparent neutrality.
Three female speakers were tape recorded saying
that word wile varying
their tone of voice so as to communicate three
different attitudes
(i.e., like, neutral, and dislike) towards an
imagined addressee. Then
the tapes were listened to by 17 female subjects
with instructions to
imagine that the speaker is saying this word
to another person and
judged by the tones what the speaker's attitude
is towards that
imaginary addressee. So there was no direct feedback
by anyone who was
being addressed. It was a number of third-party
listeners who were asked
to mind-read, guess, interpret, imagine, etc.,
how the speaker felt
towards someone who wasn't even there and, in
fact, didn't even exist.
There was no way to see or hear the reactions
of this phantom
individual, about whom someone was going to make
several long-lasting
and powerful speculations.
Next, black and white photographs were taken of
three female models as
they attempted to use facial expressions to communicate
like,
neutrality, and dislike towards another person.
Then photos were shown
to the same 17 subjects with the instructions
that they would be shown
the pictures and at the same time hear a recording
of the word "maybe"
spoken in different tones of voice. "You are
to imagine that the person
you see and hear (A) is looking at and talking
to another person (B)."
For each presentation they were to indicate on
a rating scale what they
thought A's attitude was toward B. Again, third-party
mind-reading with
no direct contact with the person addressed,
B, because that person was
non-existent. The conclusions from this experiment
were that the facial
components were stronger than the vocal by the
ratio of 3/2 as referred
to earlier.
An interesting comment that came out of the discussion
section indicated
that the effect of redundancy (i.e., consistent
attitude communication
in two or more channels) is to intensify the
attitude communicated in
any one of the component channels. Perhaps this
is something that could
be more profitably pursued instead of the denigration
of words. Or as
you can see from this particular study, word,
not words. And that word
was "maybe." It seems to play words under quite
a handicap not much
different from playing charades.
Two Studied Combined
They integrated this study with another one to come
up with the .07,
.38, and .55 coefficients. This second study
was reported in the Journal
of personality and Social Psychology, 1967, Vol.
6, No. 1, pg. 109-114
entitled, Decoding Of Inconsistent Communications.
Here they dealt with
inconsistent communication of attitude in two
components; tone of voice
and nine different words. Three words were selected
that seemed to
indicate a positive attitude, "honey," "thanks,"
and "dear." Three were
neutral, "maybe," "really," and "oh," and three
were negative, "don't,"
"brute," and "terrible."
Two female speakers were employed to read each
of the nine words with
each of the three tones, positive, neutral, or
disliking of an imaginary
addressee. These were recorded on tape which
was then listened to by 30
University of California undergraduates.
They were instructed to imagine that each word
was being said by one
person to another and to judge what the speaker's
attitude was towards
the imaginary recipient. One-third were told
to ignore the information
conveyed by the meaning of the words and to pay
attention only to the
tone. Another third were told to ignore the tone
and pay attitude only
to the meaning of the words. The last third were
told to utilize both
the tone and the content.
The findings were that the independent effects
of tone, overall, were
stronger than the independent effects of content.
I should think so!
After all, the words allowed were very limited
while the tones allowed
were unlimited as long as certain feelings were
being demonstrated. But,
after all, Mehrabian's main interest is in non-verbal
types of
communication. However, in fairness, it was mentioned
in the discussion
that the methodology used failed to solve the
problem for which it was
intended. An alternative methodology could have
employed written
communication for assessing the independent effects
of content and
electronically filtered speech (with the content
rendered
incomprehensible) for assessing the independent
effects of tone. I don't
know if an alternative experiment like that was
ever carried out.
After commenting on some of the methodological
problems, they do go on
to say that the results indicate that judgments
of attitude from
inconsistent messages involving single words
spoken with intonation are
primarily based on the attitude carried in the
tonal component. The use
of single words is a long way away from normal
communications, don't you
think? In fact, they admit that their findings
can only be safely
extended to situations in which no additional
information about the
communicator-addressee relationship is available.
This seems to relegate
it to the realm of tightly controlled laboratory-pure
experimentation
only.
I would invite all of you readers to examine not
only Mehrabian's books,
but also his articles in the professional journals
which go into more
detail concerning his experiments. If enough
of us carefully analyze the
available data, perhaps we can reinterpret the
results in a more useful,
meaningful, and workable way than we have in
the past.
Time For Accuracy
If we continue to disseminate erroneous information
such as the 7-38-55
myth, I feel we are doing a grave disservice
not only to the NLP
community, but to the public in general. We could
do a great service by
helping the public realize that the words they
use on themselves as well
a on others are extremely important in determining
the effectiveness and
longevity of relationships, the strength of personal
self-esteem, and a
whole host of other psychological physiological
phenomena.
Words and language are probably the primary motivation
factors for human
beings and they can be enhanced by proper congruent
tonality and body
language. They can also be somewhat diminished
by incongruencies which
then often show up as confusion and bewilderment
in relationship
situations. For example, think how often some
battered women have
desperately believed the words of their batterers
despite overwhelming
incongruent behavior. "He said he was really
going to change this time."
Think of your own personal experiences in close
relationships that have
gone sour. Haven't you also hoped and waited
for change that would
transform incongruent communication signals into
congruent ones?
Especially before NLP training? Haven't most
of us, at some time,
hopelessly clung to our own inaccurate interpretation
of another's
actions hoping for a miracle that would once
again make everything whole
and comfortable just like we thought it used
to be? And what was the
total affect of the spoken word at those times?
Did the words really
have only a 7% influence on our hopes and desires?
Not likely. Given the
emotional impact of prior experience and beliefs,
our memories are not
about to logically reduce the words of a loved
one, or former loved one,
to such an insignificant role instantaneously.
Such impersonal and coldly analytical reactions
are probably destined to
remain in the safety aloof confines of the experimental
laboratory with
its pretend situations and imaginary interactions.
Perhaps we could
benefit from a re-assessment of old acquired
beliefs in the glaring
light of real life relationship reactions and
perceptions.
References
Buscaqlia, Leo. (1982). Living, loving, & learning.
Charles B. Slack,
Inc.
Mehrabian, Albert. (1972). Nonverbal communication.
Aldime Atherton,
Inc.
Mehrabian, Albert. (1971). Silent Messages. Wadsworth
Publishing Co.
Mehrabian, Albert; Ferris, Susan. (1967). Journal
of Consulting
Psychology, Vol. 31. No. 3. Pg. 248_252.
Mehrabian, Albert; Wiener, Morton. (1967). Journal
of Personality and
Social Psychology. Vol. 6, No. 1. Pg. 109_114.
Author
Dr. C. E. "Buzz" Johnson, retired Optometrist, has
been through Master
Practitioner and Trainer's Training. He has been
researching the power
of words in a variety of different disciplines,
medicine, education,
addictions, relationships, psycho-neuro-immunology,
hypnosis,
psychotherapy, etc.
Quoted by Permission from Dr. Johnson, Published
originally in Anchor
Point, July 1994.
Distributed across the DEOS-L by "Steve Eskow"
<drseskow@cox.net>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [DEOS-L] The myth of "nonverbal
dominance"
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 00:20:51 -0500
Reply-To: DEOS-L - The Distance Education Online
Symposium<DEOS-L@lists.psu.edu>
From: "Steve Eskow" <drseskow@cox.net>
The note below from L. Michael Hall and the article
by Dr. Johnson will
be of interest to those who continue to believe
that "one picture is
worth a thousand words" and similar statements
about gestural
communication contain truths of value to distance
educators.
("NLP," of course, refers to "NeuroLinguistic
Programming".)
Steve Eskow
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to http://lists.psu.edu/archives/deos-l.html
to change your subscription settings and to search the DEOS-L archives
DEOS-L is a service provided to the Distance Education
community by The American Center for the Study of Distance Education, The
Pennsylvania State University. Opinions expressed are those of DEOS-L subscribers,
and do not constitute endorsement of any opinion, product, or service by
ACSDE or Penn State. |