How Much Do Words Matter?

Spoiler: A LOT!

Hello!

And welcome to the *150th issue* of Curious Minds !

Technically, my Curious Minds anniversary is next week, but I want to start today by saying thank you for being here, whether you’ve been with me for all 150 issues, or if today is the first time you’re exploring curiosity with me.

As Elmo showed us this week, life is tough right now, and my hope with Curious Minds is to bring a little joy and fun to your day.

I bet Elmo was not expecting the world to unload on him!

And like Taylor Swift, sometimes my pen is a quill, other times it’s glitter gel. Today is quill story, but I have an exciting glitter gel story in the works for next week.

Is anyone else glad it’s February? I am pleased to be that much closer to March Madness and spring — and a bit more light outside!

And though January in London was a cold and dreary month, one bright light from pop culture was the TV show, The Traitors.

For those who aren’t familiar, in this show, 22 people compete in a series of missions to win money.

But among the group are “Traitors” who are working against them.

In each episode, all of the players (including the traitors) sit around a table trying to identify who the traitors are.

This is followed by a vote, and the person who receives the most votes is kicked out of the competition.

Members of the group are often convinced they know who the traitors are.

And usually, they get it wrong.

It’s not a high-brow show, but it’s a fun, easy watch for cold January nights.

Plus, the casting did a nice job this season, from Queen Diane to Jaz¹atha Christie.

The US and Australia also have their own versions of the show.

The US version is worth watching for host Alan Cumming’s sartorial choices alone.

But, Season 2 of the US version is not available in the UK yet…so last weekend I decided to check out the Australian version.

The players were debating who the traitors might be when one of them said:

“You know that communication is only 7 percent words, right?”

No, not this again!

If you know me in real life (or are a long-time Curious Minds reader) you may know why that statement made me cringe.

So, I thought it was time to revisit a piece I shared here in 2022, because as someone who works in communication, this ubiquitous “research finding” really gets to me.

Why?

Because most of the people who share it haven’t read the research and don’t understand what the study was actually about.

Or how flawed it was.

But friends, I am that nerd who heard someone say that communication was “7 percent verbal” and got curious.

And it turned out, the answers to so many questions could be found by buying a research paper.²

So that’s exactly what I did.

So pour yourself a fizzy rosé while I share where my curiosity took me…

As Maria von Trapp sang:

Maybe you’ve seen the “research” that says communication breaks down to a formula of: 

• 55 percent body language

• 38 percent tone

• 7 percent verbal.

These figures are often quoted in leadership programs and communication think pieces.

Former FBI negotiator Chris Voss quotes it in his book, Never Split the Difference and television journalist George Stephanopoulos refers to it in his Masterclass on Purposeful Communication.

Even Kramer said that communication was 94 percent non-verbal in a Seinfeld episode.

And guess what?

If you google “communication 7 percent verbal” you get more than 143 MILLION results.³

But those figures just didn’t seem right to me.

Sure, body language and tone affect communication.

But who decided that words were worth a measly seven percent – and how?

I went digging…

I discovered the seven percent figure traces back to 1967. 

That’s when psychology professor Albert Mehrabian conducted an experiment with 37 of his female psychology students at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Albert Mehrabian

He wanted to find out “how well people can judge the feelings of others.”

His research focused on how we communicate “liking and attitudes” vocally and through our facial expressions.

The effect of verbal communication was not part of the study.

What do I mean when I say ‘maybe’?

As verbal communication was not being measured, the researchers chose to use what they considered a “neutral” word for their experiment: “maybe.”

To test the vocal component, researchers recorded a woman saying “maybe” three different ways to convey:

• liking

• disliking, and 

• neutrality. 

To test the facial component, subjects were shown small black and white photographs of a woman’s face, conveying the same three emotions. 

The experiment focused on how we communicate “liking and attitudes” vocally and through our facial expressions. 

Again, please note: the effect of verbal communication was not part of the study. 

Then the subjects were asked to identify the emotions:

• heard in the recorded voice

• seen in the photos, and

• both heard and seen together.

The subjects correctly identified the emotions 50 percent more often from the photos than from the recorded voice.

It was therefore suggested (not proven) that the facial component of communication was 1.5 times stronger than the vocal component. 

But remember, this only applies to conveying liking or attitudes.

Flawed methodology 

Researchers have been quick to criticize the shortcomings of the methodology behind Mehrabian’s experiment (which remember, was conducted by just 37 women as part of an assignment in his psychology class).

Among their criticisms, researchers note the sample size, and the fact that the subjects knew the purpose of the experiment before it began.

Several papers have gone into more detail about the shortcomings of the study, including the artificial situations, and the overly simplistic communication model.

So, how did a small study that focused only on feelings and attitudes (i.e. like/dislike) get applied so broadly to communication?

It’s not Mehrabian’s fault.

Mehrabian has expressed his frustration with the way his work has been twisted and misused. 

In 2002, he 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.”

But Mehrabian’s clarification has not stopped people from continuing to use – and misquote – his research. 

Nor has it hindered people from crediting the percentages generically to “research” without further context or connotation.

But Words Matter.

Think about it.

Imagine reading a note that said, “I love you” – or “I don’t love you anymore.”

How would you feel if you read, “You got the promotion” or “You’re fired”?

If words counted for so little, then how can they cause us to feel such emotion – from immense joy to the deepest pain?

If words were so unimportant, why would we even bother to learn language? 

So if 55/38/7 is wrong, then what’s the right formula?

While it may be convenient to reduce communication to a formula, it’s not right.

Communication is complex.

It involves words, and tone, and facial expressions.

And body language.

And context.

And our relationship with the person communicating the message.

And our feelings, opinions, and biases.

If you need to communicate a message or prepare a presentation, you need to consider it all.

But start with your words.

Get them right. 

They’re worth a lot more than seven percent.

One more thing…

How seriously do I take my research?

Well, when I first started digging into this mystery four years ago, I managed to track down an email address for Albert Mehrabian, and he very kindly answered my questions, and sent me additional material that informed this piece.

And I am not the only person who was curious about Mehrabian’s research! Check out this research paper “Communication is 93 Percent Nonverbal: An Urban Legend Proliferates” by Professor David Lapakko, who shares my passion for communication — and setting the record straight.⁴

---

Recent Work and Writing

Speaking of communication…

Communication Wonders & Blunders — Find out which communication moments from CEOs, politicians, entertainers, and companies caught my attention in January — and what we can learn from them.

Did I mention these are all from ONE MONTH?

Remember when a smoking camel was scary? I do, and I’d take Joe any day over what I read is happening to CHILDREN on the platforms owned by Meta.

---

How Can I Help?

I’ll keep saying it: Communication matters.

How much?

Well, look at the news.

Or look at these examples I collected in January alone!

If you want to improve your communication (and get all the good things that come with that), I’m your gal.

So many companies could reap massive rewards – from performance and culture to retention and engagement – by improving their communication.

So, if you know someone who could benefit from some help (as even the most seasoned leaders do), please get in touch and check out my website for more information.

You can also see my Top 10 list of what I can (and can’t) do for you here.

And if you see any communication examples (the good, the bad, and the ugly) that you think are worth analyzing or sharing, please send them my way!

Stay Curious!

-Beth

This is me (really writing and drinking coffee).

1. Here’s a refresher if case you’re curious.

2. ‘Inference of Attitudes From Nonverbal Communication in Two Channels’, by Albert Mehrabian and Susan R. Ferris (Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, Vol 31, No 3, 248-252). Susan Ferris, as you’ll see from the email above, was one of Mehrabian’s students.

3. There were 40 million search results when I asked google this question in 2022.

4. I reached out to Professor Lapakko when I was originally researching this piece in 2020, and he kindly shared his expertise with me.