Comments on: Mehrabian’s research: The secondary misinterpretation

By: After Mehrabian: Nonverbal communication research : Speaking about Presenting

After Mehrabian: Nonverbal communication research : Speaking about Presenting — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:27:18 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Guy Harris

Guy Harris — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:21:08 +0000

Hi Olivia,

I found this post by way of Bert Decker’s blog. I have read and enjoyed both posts. Thank you for this open, honest discussion of how to properly interpret Mehrabian’s research. I’m enjoying the respectful dialogue.

Your conversation with Bert planted the seed of an idea for my blog as well. Thanks.

By: When”I’m Just Fine” Means Anything But

When”I’m Just Fine” Means Anything But — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:10:42 +0000

[...] Today, I read two really good posts concerning the work of Albert Mehrabian. I enjoyed reading and comparing the two interpretations of Mehrabian’s work by both Bert Decker and Olivia Mitchell. [...]

By: Olivia Mitchell

Olivia Mitchell — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:15:56 +0000

Hi Bert

Looking at the issue of inconsistent messages – the inconsistency in Mehrabian first experiment was created by mixing positive words with a negative tone of voice and vice versa. For example the word “brute” said in a positive tone or the word “honey” said in a negative tone of voice. I get that the vocal and the visual are going to have a strong impact in this situation!

But I think the inconsistent messages above are not the same as “inconsistent” business messages in the way that you’ve defined them.

From your post I understand that you’re saying most business messages are inconsistent because the speaker lacks confidence. I think this is a different type of “inconsistency” to the inconsistency used in Mehrabian’s experiment. Therefore I don’t think that Mehrabian’s research has much bearing on the issue.

I think the issue you’re raising is the impact of anxiety on the credibility of the speaker. I agree with you that the speaker’s confidence can impact on their credibility.
But not always. Sometimes, the audience can’t tell that the speaker is nervous. Sometimes, the speaker is compelling despite their nervousness. I’m currently exploring the psychological research on credibility and will post on it if I find useful stuff. Olivia

By: Why the stickiest idea in presenting is just plain wrong : Speaking about Presenting

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:14:44 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Bert Decker

Bert Decker — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:52:27 +0000

Thanks for the post Olivia.
As you might expect from my post, I remain with the strong viewpoint that I believe Mehrabian shares:
In the delivery of an inconsistent message, the vocal and visual block the verbal.
Non-verbal cues aren’t more important than the message – our whole point is to get our message across. It’s a different issue – the non-verbal cues BECOME more important if they are inconsistent – and thus the listener tunes out the verbal. Which happens in the great majority of our business communications.
I’ll relook at the first issue you bring up about the interpretation of speaker’s feelings.
Bert
@BertDecker