Professor Albert Mehrabian's

communications model
Professor Albert Mehrabian has pioneered the understanding of
communications since the 1960s. He received his PhD from Clark
University and in l964 commenced an extended career of teaching
and research at the University of California, Los Angeles. He
currently devotes his time to research, writing, and consulting as
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, UCLA. Mehrabian's work featured
strongly (mid-late 1900s) in establishing early understanding
of body language and non-verbal communications.
Aside from his many and various other fascinating works,
Mehrabian's research provided the basis for the widely quoted and
often muchover-simplified statistic for the effectiveness of spoken
communications.
Here is a more precise (and necessarily detailed) representation of
Mehrabian's findings than is typically cited or applied:
7% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in the
words that are spoken.

38% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is

paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).

55% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in facial

expression.

The following is a more common and over-simplified interpretation

of Mehrabian's findings, which is quoted and applied by many
people to cover all communications - often without reference to
Mehrabian, although Mehrabian's work is the derivation.
It is understandable that many people prefer short concise
statements, however if you must use the simplified form of the
Mehrabian formula you must explain the context of Mehrabian's
findings. As a minimum you must state that the formula applies
tocommunications of feelings and attitudes.
Here's the overly-simplistic interpretation. Where you see or use it,
qualify it, in proper context.
7% of meaning in the words that are spoken.

38% of meaning is paralinguistic (the way that the words are

said).

55% of meaning is in facial expression.

Other important contextual and qualifying details are:

Mehrabian did not intend the statistic to be used or applied freely to
all communications and meaning.
Mehrabian provides this useful explanatory note (from his own
website www.kaaj.com/psych, retrieved 29 May 2009):
"...Inconsistent communications - the relative importance of verbal
and nonverbal messages: My findings on this topic have received
considerable attention in the literature and in the popular media.
'Silent Messages' [Mehrabian's key book] contains a detailed
discussion of my findings on inconsistent messages of feelings and
attitudes (and the relative importance of words vs. nonverbal cues)
on pages 75 to 80.
Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial
Liking
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. Also see
references 286 and 305 in Silent Messages - these are the original
sources of my findings..."
(Albert Mehrabian, source www.kaaj.com/psych, retrieved 29 May
2009)
The 'Mehrabian formula' (7%/38%/55%) was established in
situations where there was incongruence between words and
expression.
That is, where the words did not match the facial expression:
specifically in Mehrabian's research people tended to believe the
expression they saw, not the words spoken.

tips on explaining context and application of

mehrabian's formula
Notwithstanding all this background and qualification, Mehrabian's
model has become one of the most widely referenced statistics in
communications.
You will continue to see it referenced, and you will probably use it
yourself, not always in its purest form, and not always with
reference to its originator.
The essence of the model - even when used in overly simplistic form
- is powerful and generally helpful, and certainly better than placing
undue reliance on words alone for conveying (receiving and
sending) communications, especially those which carry potentially
emotional implications.
So, subject to suitable qualification and explanation,
Mehrabian's findings and the theory resulting from them, are
particularly useful in explaining the importance of
understanding meaning in communications as distinct
from words alone.
Here are a couple of simple ways to begin to qualify the
interpretation and application of the formula:
You must first clarify that the Mehrabian formula often quoted out of
context and too generally.
For example, the spoken instruction, "Everyone evacuate the
building because there is a fire," carries 100% of the meaning in the
words: i.e., 1) there is a fire, and 2) get the hell out of here. The tone
of voice and body language might additionally indicate how far
ahead of you the person issuing the instruction is likely to be, but
aside from that, you'd get the message fully through the words
without having to be an expert in body language to unravel the
meaning.
Mehrabian's theory and its implications are also not especially
applicable in strongly autocratic environments, such as the armed
forces. If the Regimental Sergeant Major tells a soldier to jump, the
soldier is best advised to consider how high, rather than whether the
RSM is instead maybe inviting a debate about the merit of the
instruction, or the feelings of the soldier in response to it.
The value of Mehrabian's theory relates to communications where
emotional content is significant, and the need to understand it
properly is great.
This is often applicable in management and business, where
motivation and attitude have a crucial effect on outcomes.

using mehrabian's theory and statistics

Understanding the difference between words and meaning is a vital
capability for effective communications and relationships. For
example, as John Ruskin so elegantly put it:
"The essence of lying is in deception, not in words." (John Ruskin,
1819-1900, English art critic and social commentator)
The Mehrabian model is particularly useful in illustrating the
importance of factors other than words alone when trying to convey
meaning (as the speaker) or interpret meaning (as the listener), but
care needs to be taken in considering the context of the
communication: Style, expression, tone, facial expression and body
language in Mehrabian's experiments did indeed account for 93% of
the meaning inferred by the people in the study, but this is not a
general rule that you can transfer to any given
communications situation.
The understanding of how to convey (when speaking) and interpret
(when listening) meaning will always be essential for effective
communication, management and relationships. But using the
Mehrabian percentages is not a reliable model to overlay onto all
communications scenarios.
For example, Mehrabian's research involved spoken
communications. Transferring the model indiscriminately to written
or telephone communications is not reliable, except to say that
without the opportunity for visual signs, there is likely to be even
more potential for confused understanding and inferred meanings.
A fairer way of transferring Mehrabian's findings to modern written
(memo, email etc) and telephone communications is simply to say
that greater care needs to be taken in the use of language and
expression, because the visual channel does not exist. It is not
correct to assume that by removing a particular channel, then so the
effectiveness of the communication reduces in line with the
classically represented Mehrabian percentages. It ain't that simple.
It is fair to say that email and other written communications are
limited to conveying words alone. The way that the words are said
cannot be conveyed, and facial expression cannot be conveyed at
all. Mehrabian provides us with a reference point as to why written
communications, particularly quick, reduced emails and memos, so
often result in confusion or cause offence, but his model should not
be taken to mean that all written communications are inevitably
weak or flawed.
If this were the case there would be no need for written contracts,
deeds, legal documents, public notices, and all other manner of
written communications, which, given their purpose, when well-
written convey 100% of the intended meaning perfectly adequately
using written words alone. When we enter a public bar and the sign
on the wall says 'NO SMOKING' we know full well what it means. We
may not know how the bar owner feels about having to bar his
customers from smoking, but in terms of the purpose of the
communication, and the meaning necessary to be conveyed, the
written word alone is fine for this situation, regardless of
Mehrabian's model.
A visitor to this page also made the fascinating observation that
modern text-based communications allow inclusion of simple iconic
facial expressions (smileys, and other emotional symbols), which
further proves the significance of, and natural demand for, non-
verbal signs within communications. The point also highlights the
difficulty in attempting to apply the Mehrabian principle too
generally, given that now electronic communications increasingly
allow a mixture of communication methods - and many far more
sophisticated than smileys - within a single message. (Thanks M
Ellwood, Apr 2007)
Telephone communication can convey words and the way that the
words are said, but no facial expression. Mehrabian's model provides
clues as to why telephone communications are less successful and
reliable for sensitive or emotional issues, but the model cannot be
extended to say, for instance, that without the visual channel the
meaning can only be a maximum of 45% complete.
Nor does Mehrabian's model say that telephone communications are
no good for, say, phoning home to ask for the address of the local
poodle parlour. For this type of communication, and for this intended
exchange of information and meaning, the telephone is perfectly
adequate, and actually a whole lot more cost-effective and efficient
than driving all the way home just to ask the question and receive
the answer face to face.
The Mehrabian statistics certainly also suggest that typical video-
conferencing communications are not so reliable as genuine face-to-
face communications, because of the intermittent transfer of
images, which is of course incapable of conveying accurate non-
verbal signals, but again it is not sensible to transfer directly the
percentage effectiveness shown and so often quoted from the
model. Video conferencing offers a massive benefits for modern
organisation development and cooperation. Be aware of its
vulnerabilities, and use it wherever it's appropriate, because it's a
great system.
Mehrabian's model is a seminal piece of work, and it's amazingly
helpful in explaining the importance of careful and appropriate
communications. Like any model, care must be exercised when
transferring it to different situations. Use the basic findings and
principles as a guide and an example - don't transfer the
percentages, or make direct assumptions about degrees of
effectiveness, to each and every communication situation.
I am grateful for the guidance of B Taylor and C Edwards in
progressively revising this guide to Mehrabian's communications
theory.
For more information about Dr Albert Mehrabian and his fascinating
work see his website.
Albert Mehrabian's key book is Silent Messages, which contains lots
of information about non-verbal communications (body language).
Mehrabian, A. (1981) Silent messages: Implicit communication of
emotions and attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth (currently
distributed by Albert Mehrabian, email: am@kaaj.com)

Mehrabian's communication study

There is an oft-quoted (and often mis-quoted) study by Albert Mehrabian on how people
decide whether they like one another.

The studies
Mehrabian and his colleagues were seeking to understand the relative impact of facial
expressions and spoken words.
Study 1
In Mehrabian and Wiener, (1967), subjects listened to nine recorded words, three
conveying liking (honey, dear and thanks), three conveying neutrality (maybe, really and
oh) and three conveying disliking (dont, brute and terrible).
The words were spoken with different tonalities and subjects were asked to guess the
emotions behind the words as spoken. The experiment finding was that tone carried more
meaning than the individual words themselves.
Study 2
In Mehrabian and Ferris (1967), subjects were asked to listen to a recording of a female
saying the single word 'maybe' in three tones of voice to convey liking, neutrality and
disliking.
The subjects were then shown photos of female faces with the same three emotions and
were asked to guess the emotions in the recorded voices, the photos and both in
combination.
The photos got more accurate responses than the voice, by a ratio of 3:2.
They cautiously note:

These findings regarding the relative contribution of the tonal component of a

verbal message can be safely extended only to communication situations in
which no additional information about the communicator-addressee relationship
is available.

The misunderstanding
Mehrabian and Ferris (1967) provides the original source of the 7%-38%-55% misquote:

It is suggested that the combined effect of simultaneous verbal, vocal and facial
attitude communications is a weighted sum of their independent effects -- with
the coefficients of .07, .38, and .55, respectively.

Mehrabian has also concluded on his website the following formula:

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

He also notes:

Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these

equations are not applicable.

This finding tends to be incorrectly generalized to mean that in all communications:

7% happens in spoken words.

38% happens through voice tone.

55% happens via general body language.

Of course this cannot be true: does an email only convey 7%? Can you watch a person
speaking in a foreign language and understand 93%?

The implications
Whilst the exact numbers may be challenged, the important points can easily be lost in the
debate about how valid or not the study was.
Useful extensions to this understanding are:

It's not just words: a lot is communication comes through non-verbal

communication.

Without seeing and hearing non-verbals, it is easier to misunderstand the words.

When we are unsure about what the words mean, we pay more attention to the non-
verbals.
We will also pay more attention to the non-verbal indicators when we trust the person less
and suspect deception, as it is generally understood that voice tone and body language are
harder to control than words. This also leads to more attention to non-verbal signals when
determining whether the other person may be lying.

So what?
Beware of words-only communications like email. It is very easy to misunderstand what is
said, even if emoticons (smileys) are used.
When you feel that a person is not telling the truth, check out the alignment between
words, voice and body.
If you want the other person to pay more attention to your body language, be less clear
with your words. If you want them to trust the words, be clear and unambiguous.

Competency Ice-Berg Model - Meaning and its Components

The iceberg model for competencies takes the help of an iceberg to explain the concept of competency. An iceberg which has just one-
ninth of its volume above water and the rest remains beneath the surface in the sea. Similarly, a competency has some components
which are visible like knowledge and skills but other behavioural components like attitude, traits, thinking styles, self-image, organization
fit etc are hidden or beneath the surface.

Ice-Berg Model

So, is there a relation between the competencies which are above the surface and those which lie beneath? In the
book Competence at Work Models for Superior Performance, the authors Lyle M. Spencer and Signe M. Spencer
explain that a behaviour is incompletely defined without intent.

The aspects of competencies which lie below the surface like attitude, traits, thinking styles etc directly
influence the usage of knowledge and skills to complete a job effectively.

Let us try to understand it through an example. Suppose an organization is promoting an open door policy which
literally means that a manager or supervisor would keep the doors of his/her chamber open to become accessible to
their subordinates and encourage sharing of opinions and feedback. A manager sitting at the farthest corner of the
office keeps his door open all the time, how does one evaluate whether it is for fresh air, claustrophobia or an
indication that his subordinates are invited to reach out to him anytime. Therefore, intent behind a displayed action is
necessary to understand the action and its implication fully.

In more complex jobs, these behavioural aspects, motives and traits become more important than the skills and
knowledge required to do the job. Think of a soldier at the war front, he knows how to use the weapon he is holding,
but thinks that the war is unjust and refuses to fire. In organizations, senior level hiring is therefore a time consuming
and elaborate affair as it becomes necessary to establish the alignment between the organizational and individual
motivation and aspirations.

Developing the two levels of competencies also takes different routes. The visible competencies like knowledge and
skills can be easily developed through training and skill building exercises however the behavioural competencies are
rather difficult to assess and develop. It takes more time and effort intensive exercises, like psychotherapy,
counseling, coaching and mentoring, developmental experiences etc.

In the traditional method of hiring, most of the organizations looked at just the visible components of competencies;
the knowledge and skills, believing that the behavioural aspects can be developed through proper guidance and good
management. However, with major shifts in the conventional methods of people management, the hiring process has
also undergone a change therefore a lot of emphasis is being put on the hidden behavioural aspects as well to make
a sound decision. Hence, a complete picture regarding the competence of a person consists of both visible and
hidden aspects and it becomes necessary to understand both to arrive at identifying the best man for a job.