These widely-believed public speaking myths put pressure on you to do things which are not necessary.

Myth #1: It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it

You’ve most likely heard that 7% of your message comes from what you say, 38% from your tone of voice, and 55% from your body language. There’s no credible evidence that these figures apply to normal day-to-day conversations and presentations.

The figures come from an experiment carried out by Albert Mehrabian 43 years ago. The experiment was very limited in it’s application. It involved single tape-recorded words and photographs of people with different facial expressions. I’ve described the experiment in detail here: Mehrabian and Non-verbal communication. In the 43 years since, there has been no research that replicates his results in more natural situations.

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)

BTW, Max Atkinson has written many great posts on the absurdity of the 7-38-55 figures. And for a fun debunking of the Mehrabian myth see the animated video created by Martin Shovel and Martha Leyton. Martin has also written a valuable article on the limitations of Mehrabian’s research.

So forget those absurd figures. This myth makes you believe that there is some mystique to public speaking – for which you need special training.

Here’s a more common sense way of looking at it. Both your content (the words you say) and your delivery are important. Content is the base building block of a great presentation. Delivery has the ability to either enhance or sabotage that content.

Myth #2: Adapt to the learning styles of your audience

Learning styles is the theory that each person has a preferred learning style and that as a presenter you should cater to all those learning styles. There are many different models for learning styles, but the most popular one is VAK (Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic modalities). Learning styles theory suggests that all the information you present should be presented in those three modalities.

I recently explored the research literature on learning styles, as did Cathy Moore, an elearning expert. Reviews of the literature on learning styles do not point to any credible evidence to support learning styles theory. This doesn’t mean that we don’t learn in these different ways or that there aren’t individual differences in the way that we learn. What it does mean is that when we’re presenting, we don’t have to present each piece of information in three different ways.

So you don’t need to worry about who in your audience is visual and who is auditory (I’ve left out kinaesthetic as that is not often practical in a presentation – it involves more than just playing with a coloured rubber ball).  Barring disabilities, everyone has a visual mode and an  auditory mode. So present information which is best presented visually with slides, and present information which is best presented aurally with your voice.

Myth #3: You must grab people’s attention at the start

The public speaking world adopted this maxim from advertising. Advertisers face the challenge of distracting us from our busyness so that we’ll read their ads. Advertisers must grab attention first.

But in the public speaking situation, people are sitting in the audience waiting for you to start. They may be talking to the person next to them or checking their phone, but as soon as you start they’ll pay attention – if only to see if your presentation is going to be any good. The challenge in public speaking is not to grab attention, it is to keep attention.

That’s demonstrated by the chart to the right showing the attention of university students during a 50 minute lecture (check the evidence out further here).

Here’s why this myth is a problem. First, starting with a shocking statistic or dramatic statement is not conversational. It sets up your presentation as a performance. It’s an old-fashioned style of oratory. And second, it pushes you to lead with your best material – with the risk that your presentation will be downhill from there.

You’ve already got the audience’s attention. In those first few moments, the more important task is to establish rapport with your audience.

Note: Rich Hopkins has written a thoughtful rebuttal to Myth #3.

Before Copernicus we believed that the the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth. That’s what it looked like and it made sense. But science showed us that it’s not the case.

Today, many people believe in learning styles theory. At face value it makes sense and it’s easy to make your own experiences fit with the theory. But science does not back-up learning styles theory.

What is learning styles theory

Learning styles theory says that there are different learning modalities and that individuals have a preferred modality. The most common modalities mentioned are visual, auditory, kinaesthetic (this is known as the VAK model – however, there are many other models).

So far, so good. It’s probably true that individuals differ in which modality they prefer– just as we differ in many other aspects of our abilities.

However, learning styles theory takes this a step further and suggests that teaching should take place in the learner’s preferred modality. This is sometimes called the “meshing hypothesis”.

How could learning styles apply to presenting

Presentation advisors have used learning styles theory to encourage presenters to do more than just speak. Listening to a purely-spoken presentation is an auditory activity. So presentation advisers suggest that presenters use visuals (to help the visual learners in your audience), and get audience members to do things (to help the kinaesthetic learners).

Learning styles don’t make sense

At face value this makes sense. But not when you dig deeper. Learning styles theory says that an auditory learner will learn things better when they are presented aurally. But there are many types of knowledge which are hard to grasp aurally – for example the shape of a country or how to ride a bike. Just about everyone will learn the shape of a country by seeing that shape, that is visually. Just about everyone learns how to ride a bike by doing it, that is kinaesthetically. It is the type of information that drives how we should present it – not the learning style of the learner.

Here’s a video from cognitive psychologist Dr Daniel Willingham explaining this in more detail:

Research on learning styles

Here are references to three reports that reviewed the evidence:

• A 1987 meta-analysis of 39 classroom learning style studies found no evidence that teaching to a child’s best modality had an impact on learning.

• In 2004, the UK Learning and Skills Development Agency commissioned an evaluation of learning styles models and their effectiveness in post-16 learning.

“[S]ome of the best known and widely used instruments have such serious weaknesses (eg low reliability, poor validity and negligible impact on pedagogy) that we recommend that their use in research and in practice should be discontinued.”

• In 2008, the Association for Psychological Science commissioned a panel of psychologists and cognitive scientists to review the evidence for learning styles. Their review found that:

“Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.”

And here’s another reference that makes a mockery of those self-assessment quizzes:

“Furthermore, in a laboratory study of memory performance, participants’ own self-assessment of their learning style (as is commonly used) was shown to be out of line with more objective measures, and memory scores in different modalities appeared unrelated to any measure of dominant learning style (Kratzig and Arbuthnott, 2006).”

What does this mean for presenters

That suggests that rather than concern ourselves with the preferred learning style of an audience member we should think about the modality that best suits the content. For instance most people are likely to prefer to see an organizational chart, rather than have it described to them. Some types of content are likely to be better transferred to audience members by being presented in multiple modalities.

So for your next presentation, examine each piece of content and decide which is the best modality in which to present each piece. All your audience members will benefit.

In the communications and presentations industry there are generally just two research studies that are quoted when talking about the importance of nonverbal communication. They were carried out by Albert Mehrabian and his colleagues in 1967. Forty-two years ago.

Mehrabian misinterpretation

In the second of those studies, Mehrabian proposed the 7-38-55% formula. He suggested that the perception of a speaker’s feelings was based 7% on the word used, 38% on the tone of voice and 55% on the facial expression. In two previous posts, I showed how this has often been misinterpreted to apply to the meaning that is derived from a communication, or to the feelings that are engendered in the listener. (The studies are in fact restricted to the judgement of the speaker’s feelings).

After Mehrabian

Based on the fact that these are just about the only studies on nonverbal communication ever quoted by communications consultants, you would think that these were the only pieces of research ever done on nonverbal communication. Not so. In a 1985 literature review I found 33 other studies specifically on the relative importance of nonverbal communication (Noller, 1985).

In this post, I look at the other research on nonverbal communication. There is a rich and complex literature on the issue.

Many factors affect the importance of nonverbal communication

The issue is far more complicated than Mehrabian’s figures lead us to believe. Research carried out after Mehrabian’s 1967 studies has shown that:

• The channel carrying the negative connotation is the one likely to be used in deciding whether the message is positive or negative. (Bugental, 1970, 1972, 1974)
• The more verbal material there is, the more important the verbal channel. (Cline, 1972)
• When observers were asked to make a cognitive judgement about the speaker (as opposed to a judgement about how the speaker feels) the verbal channel was more important. (Freidman, 1978)
• When observers were asked to judge whether a speaker was being honest or deceptive, the verbal channel was most important. (Kraut, 1978; Krauss, 1981)
• The sex of the speaker, and the sex of the observer affect the importance of the channel. (Argyle, 1970; De Paulo, 1979, Noller 1980)

Little support for the findings of Mehrabian’s research

In addition many later papers specifically state that they found no support for the claim that nonverbal communication is dominant. Here’s just one quote:

“Claims from the previous literature about the primacy of the visual over the verbal channel and the particular importance of the face as compared to body or speech [Mehrabian (1967) is cited here along with others] were not supported.”  O’Sullivan, Ekman, Friesen and Scherer (1980)

Even when it came to the judgement of the speaker’s emotions, researchers concluded:

“Nothing we have found would lead us to conclude that nonverbal information, whether it be transmitted via the vocal or the visible channel, is in any sense the primary basis for the perception of another’s affect [emotions]. ” Krauss, Apple, Morency, Wenzel and Winton (1981)

Cherry-picking

In any field of scientific research, you’re likely to find some variability in results, dependent of many factors including the design of the experiment. It’s tempting to look at just the research that supports your point of view, and ignore the rest. It’s so common that it has a name: cherry picking. My conclusion is that in the presentations industry, we’ve been guilty of just that.

This is my third post in my series on Mehrabian’s research. If you haven’t already checked them out, see:

Why the stickiest idea in presenting is just plain wrong

The secondary misinterpretation of Mehrabian‘s research

Bert Decker has written a comprehensive reply on his blog to my first post on the Mehrabian myth. However, I disagree with his interpretation of Mehrabian’s research and in a moment I’ll show you why.

But before I do, I want to say that I greatly appreciate Bert and his contribution to the presentation and public speaking blogosphere. He is a great friend and mentor to me. He has encouraged me in my blogging and helped me to take my first steps on Twitter. Regarding this issue, we’ve had e-mail correspondence behind the scenes and I think we’re both quite comfortable about having an intellectual disagreement about the issues.

Bert is not the only blogger to make what I see as a misinterpretation. Since writing my first post, I’ve found that it’s a common secondary misinterpretation made by people who know you can’t apply Mehrabian’s formula to all communications.

The misinterpretation of Mehrabian

Bert agrees that the application of the 7-38-55% formula to all communications is not warranted. However, he says that how a listener feels about a speaker depends 7% on words, 38% on vocals and 55% on the visual:

The most important takeaway is that when there is an inconsistent message, the listener will overwhelmingly judge the visual cues more as to whether they like (trust and believe) the speaker. [emphasis added]

In other words, Bert is saying that Mehrabian measured whether the listener liked or disliked the speaker. So Bert has interpreted the question being considered as “Does the listener like the speaker?” :

What was Mehrabian measuring?

Here were the instructions to the observers in Mehrabian’s 1967 experiments:

Each time you hear  the speaker say a word, we would like you to judge the degree of the speaker’s positive versus negative attitude towards the addressee. “Positive” refers to liking, … and “negative” refers to disliking, … of the addressee. [emphasis added].

So the question being considered was “Does the speaker like the listener?”

Mehrabian was measuring how other people could tell whether the speaker liked the listener. The research measured the observers’ judgement of the speaker’s feelings about the listener- not the listener’s feelings about the speaker.

Therefore I believe that the interpretation that how a listener feels about a speaker depends 7% on words, 38% on vocals and 55% on the visual – is also wrong.

Note: For more information on Mehrabian’s 1967 research see Mehrabian’s studies in nonverbal communication.

Source of the confusion

This is an easy misinterpretation to make if you rely on Mehrabian’s web page about his book “Silent Messages”. Mehrabian shows this equation:

Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking

If you don’t know the context, it would be easy to assume that this equation is equivalent to saying “Your liking of someone depends 7% on their words (verbal), 38% on their tone of voice (vocal) and 55% on their facial expression”.

Going back to the original research, however, makes it clear that this equation means “When an observer is judging whether the speaker likes the listener the observer relies 7% on the verbal, 38% on the vocal and 55% on the facial”.

Does liking equate to trust and believability?

Bert has extrapolated “liking” to include “trust and believability”. If you accept that Mehrabian’s research was about the speaker’s feelings towards the listener, then whether liking includes trust and believability is no longer relevant.

But let’s say I was wrong on that, I would have an issue with this extrapolation. Liking someone does not necessarily mean that you trust and believe them. Nor does dislike automatically lead to distrust. For example, I might dislike a person but still trust that they’ll do what they say. The words “trust” and “believable” are found nowhere in the original research. If a psychologist were doing an experiment on liking and trust, I’m confident they would measure them separately. It’s possible that liking might correlate with trust and believability in some circumstances, but I would want to see research on this before saying they were equivalent.

Recap

My aim in this series of posts is to remove the confusion surrounding Mehrabian’s research. I think it’s important not to stretch research findings further than is warranted.

I agree with Bert that emotional impact is important and that the way a speaker comes across can increase or reduce that emotional impact. But I don’t think the emotional impact can be reduced to a formula, and I’m not convinced that the nonverbal cues are more important than the content of the message.

In my next post, I’ll be looking at research on nonverbal communication which has been carried out more recently and what that research tells us about the importance of nonverbal communication.

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:

1. Describe the experiments Mehrabian carried out, and
2. 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:

1. They only used two or three people to do the speaking for the experiments.
2. They take no account of the extent to which the speakers could produce the required tone of voice.
3. They were artificial situations with no context.
4. The communication model on which they were based, has now been shown to be too simple.
5. They take no account of the characteristics of the observers making the judgements.
6. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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

Alan Stevens -The 7% myth

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. “)

Martin Shovel – Mehrabian Nights – a tall tale about communication, in which common-sense is stretched almost to breaking point

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

Justin O’Brien – Mehrabian

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):

Kathy Reiffenstein

Todd List

Andrew Lightheart

Cliff Atkinson

Pat Shaughnessy

Steve Cherchers

Roger Courville

Marion Chapsal

Scott Berkun

Steve Roesler

James Feudo

Kristin Arnold

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

Many presenters have heard about learning styles and want to know how they can take individual learning styles into account when they present. But the learning styles model has no research that backs it up:

“from a neuroscientific point of view [the learning styles approach to teaching] is nonsense”. (Susan Greenfield, specialist in brain physiology, quoted in The Times Educational Supplement, 27 July 2007).

But it still sticks around. Today I was a participant on a course where I was subjected to a “learning styles” test. Here’s just one example.  I was asked when buying a gift did I prefer to buy:

• books
• music; or
• tools and gadgets.

If I ticked the book column - it was coded as visual, music as auditory, and tools and gadgets as kinesthetic. As Susan Greenfield says – this is nonsense.

As a result of the learning styles model, many presenters believe that they need to present information in different ways to suit different people. This idea by itself doesn’t do much harm, as research does show that we all benefit from taking in information both visually and aurally. But many people misunderstand what visual means. They believe that visual includes reading words. And they use this to justify putting wordy bullet-points on their PowerPoint slides.

Just because words enter the brain through our eyes (visually) does not mean that they are processed visually. As Richard Mayer explains, words are processed in the verbal channel of our brain. So if we’re also listening to a speaker, the verbal channel will be overloaded:

John Medina in his book, Brain Rules, has a good section on the difference between text and images “When it comes to memory, researchers have known for more than 100 years that pictures and text follow very different rules.” See more at the book’s website.

So please, don’t use learning styles as an excuse for bullet-point slides.