The biggest myth of interpersonal communication, or what did Mehrabian mean?
What we heard (what we know)
You may have heard that people communicate using three channels: verbal, tone of voice, and body language, and that each channel conveys a certain amount of information. Many people assume that this is simply the case, especially since it is confirmed by research. These studies also include specific figures, namely that 7% of the message is language, 38 tones of voice and 55 body language. These studies were conducted by psychologist Albert Mehrabian in 1967.
Confrontation of experiment with reality
But let's take a closer look at whether this is true. Since there is so little communication in words, how is it possible to successfully listen to radio broadcasts or conduct telephone conversations, where we communicate effectively.
Let's imagine such a situation. We watch the news on TV, where Justyna Pochanke or Piotr Kraśko present important facts, and we mute the sound. Can we understand everything? Probably not, perhaps we will know what the discussion is about, but we are unable to catch the details. Similarly, when we watch two people talking and gesticulating from a distance of 50 meters, we can judge their relationship, whether they are having fun or arguing, but it is rather difficult to analyze it in depth. Examples can be multiplied.
What was Mehrabian really after?
All the confusion is easily cleared up once we start exploring Professor Mehrabian's study. Indeed, this psychologist conducted research and indeed the numbers 7-38-55 came out. It's just that they had nothing to do with how much information we pass on through different channels. To bring it closer, let's check what the experiment looked like, basically two experiments.
In the first experiment, the dependence of the content of the utterance on the sound of the voice was examined.
Single words were given (from the tape), which were neutral, negative and positive in three tones of voice. The person who listened to it had to assess whether the message was positive or negative, ie what feelings the speaker was expressing.
The second experiment was even more interesting, because the subjects heard only single words like great, maybe, don't uttered in different tones of voice (positive, negative, neutral) and additionally they watched pictures of faces with different facial expressions, and their task, as in the first time, was to determine the speaker's feelings.
The aim of the experiment was to examine what guides us (words, tone, facial expression) when receiving a message that is inconsistent. Based on the data from these experiments, three famous numbers came up. Only women took part in the experiment and there were only 137 of them. In addition, single words, tone of voice and facial expressions were tested, and the rest of the body language was completely omitted.
Despite the various flaws of the experiment, Mehrabian proved that we rely more on facial expressions and tone of voice than on words when we have inconsistency. For example, when a certain person says that everything is fine with him, and he has a sad face and says it quietly, we will be more convinced that the person is sad.
How can it be used?
From the experiment, we learned that we transmit information through three channels and if words say one thing and body language says something else, an inconsistency arises. If we are inconsistent, our message, despite our sincere intentions, will not be received as we want. Secondly, we can also be perceived as dishonest. So it's worth starting to observe both your body language and other people's and draw conclusions. It may seem difficult at first, but after a while you will get used to it and it will become easy. It is simply training a new filter of perception in order to communicate better. An interesting exercise is also watching TV without sound and drawing conclusions based only on body language. It is best to treat it as a game from which we will be able to draw many benefits.
What we heard (what we know)
You may have heard that people communicate using three channels: verbal, tone of voice, and body language, and that each channel conveys a certain amount of information. Many people assume that this is simply the case, especially since it is confirmed by research. These studies also include specific figures, namely that 7% of the message is language, 38 tones of voice and 55 body language. These studies were conducted by psychologist Albert Mehrabian in 1967.
Confrontation of experiment with reality
But let's take a closer look at whether this is true. Since there is so little communication in words, how is it possible to successfully listen to radio broadcasts or conduct telephone conversations, where we communicate effectively.
Let's imagine such a situation. We watch the news on TV, where Justyna Pochanke or Piotr Kraśko present important facts, and we mute the sound. Can we understand everything? Probably not, perhaps we will know what the discussion is about, but we are unable to catch the details. Similarly, when we watch two people talking and gesticulating from a distance of 50 meters, we can judge their relationship, whether they are having fun or arguing, but it is rather difficult to analyze it in depth. Examples can be multiplied.
What was Mehrabian really after?
All the confusion is easily cleared up once we start exploring Professor Mehrabian's study. Indeed, this psychologist conducted research and indeed the numbers 7-38-55 came out. It's just that they had nothing to do with how much information we pass on through different channels. To bring it closer, let's check what the experiment looked like, basically two experiments.
In the first experiment, the dependence of the content of the utterance on the sound of the voice was examined.
Single words were given (from the tape), which were neutral, negative and positive in three tones of voice. The person who listened to it had to assess whether the message was positive or negative, ie what feelings the speaker was expressing.
The second experiment was even more interesting, because the subjects heard only single words like great, maybe, don't uttered in different tones of voice (positive, negative, neutral) and additionally they watched pictures of faces with different facial expressions, and their task, as in the first time, was to determine the speaker's feelings.
The aim of the experiment was to examine what guides us (words, tone, facial expression) when receiving a message that is inconsistent. Based on the data from these experiments, three famous numbers came up. Only women took part in the experiment and there were only 137 of them. In addition, single words, tone of voice and facial expressions were tested, and the rest of the body language was completely omitted.
Despite the various flaws of the experiment, Mehrabian proved that we rely more on facial expressions and tone of voice than on words when we have inconsistency. For example, when a certain person says that everything is fine with him, and he has a sad face and says it quietly, we will be more convinced that the person is sad.
How can it be used?
From the experiment, we learned that we transmit information through three channels and if words say one thing and body language says something else, an inconsistency arises. If we are inconsistent, our message, despite our sincere intentions, will not be received as we want. Secondly, we can also be perceived as dishonest. So it's worth starting to observe both your body language and other people's and draw conclusions. It may seem difficult at first, but after a while you will get used to it and it will become easy. It is simply training a new filter of perception in order to communicate better. An interesting exercise is also watching TV without sound and drawing conclusions based only on body language. It is best to treat it as a game from which we will be able to draw many benefits.
3 users upvote it!
2 answers
Thank you for sharing the content of this experiment. Indeed, the inconsistency is very often identified by the recipient of the message, although rarely he is able to interpret and properly name its cause.
The lack of body language skills is very visible cross-culturally, where Europe fares much worse compared to Asia. However, it is worth emphasizing that, like any other skill, acquiring consistency in communication is only a matter of time and proper training.
Thank you for sharing the content of this experiment. Indeed, the inconsistency is very often identified by the recipient of the message, although rarely he is able to interpret and properly name its cause.
The lack of body language skills is very visible cross-culturally, where Europe fares much worse compared to Asia. However, it is worth emphasizing that, like any other skill, acquiring consistency in communication is only a matter of time and proper training.
Machine translated
3 likes
Now these senses need to be connected, can the average Kowalski do it?
Now these senses need to be connected, can the average Kowalski do it?
Machine translated