acm - an acm publication


The 7% rule
fact, fiction, or misunderstanding

Ubiquity, Volume 2011 Issue October, October 2011 | BY Philip Yaffe 


Full citation in the ACM Digital Library  | PDF | 526: Invalid SSL certificate

Error 526 Ray ID: 5351e5c16e12e724 • 2019-11-13 15:49:45 UTC

Invalid SSL certificate








What happened?

The origin web server does not have a valid SSL certificate.

What can I do?

If you're a visitor of this website:

Please try again in a few minutes.

If you're the owner of this website:

The SSL certificate presented by the server did not pass validation. This could indicate an expired SSL certificate or a certificate that does not include the requested domain name. Please contact your hosting provider to ensure that an up-to-date and valid SSL certificate issued by a Certificate Authority is configured for this domain name on the origin server. Additional troubleshooting information here.


I think it worth considering that 93% of the believability of the words you speak is derived from your tone and body language.

��� Paul Consalvi, Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:38:38 UTC

i think we shoukd enlist an open door policy

��� graham, Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:43:52 UTC

I would think the ratio varies with the situation and subject matter. Einstein physics is defintely skewed to content when a student is listening to a lecture in grad school. While proposing marriage would be skewed (as opposed to let's spend the night together) on not only content and tone, but also the and body language (can I believe he means what he says?). And then there is the existing bias of the listener (trust or the lack of it in the speaker). The existing model is too simple. More variables are need, I think, to 'measure' effective communication.

��� Jane Josefson, Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:46:39 UTC

Try telling someone that they're the best, while using a sarcastic tone and rolling your eyes. See if they believe it.

��� Mikey, Mon, 09 Sep 2019 03:34:16 UTC

Almost every comment here that disagrees with the author is in fact proving his point. Almost every disagreement here is concerned with the emotional content of speech and how it is altered by non-verbal communication. This is not contested in the article. Quite the contrary, the article attests that the value of non-verbals is purely emotional. Through non-verbals, we can interpret much about the character and disposition of the speaker, but nothing of the information being transmitted. Note, in the case with the pilot jumping of the plane, the non-verbals do not "change the meaning on the words", they simply prove the words to be a lie. If you see me stealing something, and then I say "I didn't steal it", the act of stealing doesn't change the meaning of my claim, just its validity. Even the reference to the President falls foul of the same trap. His manner of speaking does not give different meaning to his words. "Grab her by the pussy" means what it means. People discard the message because they like the man, but that doesn't change the meaning of the words. Take a purely factual statement: "Plants convert sunlight into energy through photosynthesis". There is no tone of voice nor gesture that I could apply while making this statement that would cause you to interpret its meaning differently. I encourage you to demonstrate otherwise.There might be a tone of voice, for example, that would cause you to question my confidence in my own knowledge, but that wouldn't change the meaning of the sentence, just your trust in me. All this article suggests is that it is a myth that a spoken message relies as little as 7% on the content of that message. None of the comments here has actually countered that other than by assertion.

��� Karl Millsom, Tue, 27 Aug 2019 04:10:59 UTC

This article presents very strong arguments, the best of which is that the experiments behind "the 7% rule" should be first understood before we run around quoting results we do not understand. I for instance had erroneously assumed that the experiments were much more elaborate, involving many studies in many languages. But in my humble opinion, the human mind automatically pays attention to body language and tone when listening to a speaker. I cannot correctly assign any numerical values to the three aspects discussed here, but I believe that even though the actual words are the primary substance of verbal communication, when one speaks to another average human, tone and body language become important enough to entirely alter the spoken word. Imagine, for instance, that you have boarded an aircraft that is now sitting on the runway, awaiting instructions to take off. The captain rushes out of the cockpit, stares wildly at everyone, and says nervously, "Sit tight, everything is fine." He then proceeds to throw the door open, jump out of the plane and start running on the tarmac, away from the waiting aircraft. Do you believe that everything is fine? Do you sit tight and wait for takeoff? If anything, his nervous tone and physical actions would turn his words into the opposite of their syntactical meanings. Your mind would hear, "Panic and get out of this plane. Something is very wrong!"

��� Tuvi King, Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:08:19 UTC

Making a speech and posting messages on the internet are completely different methods of communication and as such do not provide a proper basis for your argument against this 7% rule theory.

��� Brigitte Lowther, Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:46:17 UTC

Yaffe is sorely mistaken. One has only to look and listen to our current President (#45) to learn that words are not chosen carefully and that body language and tone play a measurably more important role in convincing an audience of the veracity of the message. I say this regardless of whether one wants to believe or wants to dispute the message. The words are not nearly as important.

��� Gill Wright Miller, Thu, 16 May 2019 12:50:32 UTC

Excellent Explnation.

��� Anand Ghurye, Wed, 15 May 2019 18:09:19 UTC

save this

��� jeff, Wed, 21 Mar 2018 22:51:07 UTC

As a one time speech teacher I would suggest this experience: Tell someone you love them and shake your head "no" at the same time. You will become a believer in Mehrabian.

��� Greg Stephens, Tue, 06 Jun 2017 14:05:15 UTC

It seems this article has confused the issue by bringing disorganised oratory into the equation. In other words communication is also a function of structure and eloquance - which is true. The question for me is however, given exactly the same speech on that is witnessed in person with body language and tone vs one that is read from a transcript - what is the difference in perception. Anyone who has read a transcript of an interview will be familiar with the strange way in which it reads - the um's and ahs and changes in direction before completing a point are made starkly visible in the transcript where they tend to get filtered out in the in person experience as the listener is tuned into the speaker and is in many cases ahead of the oratory. Whether or not it is strictly 93/7 I have no idea but I know from experience that a significant amount is lost when communication goes straight to print.

��� Bengine, Sun, 18 Sep 2016 10:06:21 UTC

I am not sure where you are getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic information I was looking for this info for my mission. gfddcdceckkcdceb

��� , Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:14:29 UTC

Kate Gladstone said, "When anyone asserts to me that "ninety-three percent of communication's nonverbal," I ask him or her to communicate that assertion in a 93%-nonverbal manner. In fact, no one can nonverbally communicate even the single concept "nonverbal"!" Of course it would be impossible. I'm not arguing the validity of the topic, but your response would be easily rebuked. Suppose I told you 60% of a can of soda was simply sugar. Would you then respond by asking me to make you a soda using just sugar? You cannot ask someone to produce a whole product by only using a portion of what makes the product whole. If you ask someone to communicate to you using only the 93% portion of communication, they cannot give you a complete communication, especially since 38% of that 93% is "the tone and music of their voice". The 7% percent is just the actual words chosen. But again, I'm not actually arguing that 93% of our communication is nonverbal, I just used the presented numbers. My argument is that your reply is asking someone to perform an impossibility and neither proves your point, nor disproves theirs.

��� Dre Porcher, Thu, 11 Aug 2016 02:01:49 UTC

When anyone asserts to me that "ninety-three percent of communication's nonverbal," I ask him or her to communicate that assertion in a 93%-nonverbal manner. In fact, no one can nonverbally communicate even the single concept "nonverbal"!

��� Kate Gladstone, Thu, 14 Jul 2016 05:28:54 UTC

From what I understand, the problem with understanding the emotional level in a conversation is hard with Autism because so often people say one thing and actually mean something else. This does not happen as much in, say, lectures and speeches, because the point is to bring across information and because of that the body language is not as important. But in everyday conversations people use innuendo and tone of voice a lot more to express how they feel, especially if it is a negative or not socially acceptable feeling/opinion they are voicing in public. Because of this, people may have difficulty understanding your emotions behind what you say. They are used to reading and interpreting these non-verbal cues instead of just taking all words spoken as fact (which from what I understand the Autistic mind does.) :)

��� Rebekka, Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:57:00 UTC

The only comment I have is a question. I'm a formally diagnosed high functioning autistic, with an rated IQ of 156. I've been told and have read, that one of the diagnostic criteria is the inability to understand non-verbal communication, that we can't put the verbal content together with facial expressions and body posture. We (meaning ASD's) also have problems with eye contact (which I've been told too many times that I never look at whomever I'm talking to) and that my own body posture and facial expressions dint link up with my verbal content. I've been told, again more than once, that I always look angry, even when I'm happy (I don't enough I guess). My question is, given the factors I've written, why is it so difficult for me to understand the emotional content of a conversation? Why am I, as has been described to me, "mind blind"? Why do I seem unempathetic to others? Can someone please comment?

��� John-William Gibson, Tue, 15 Mar 2016 05:07:38 UTC

If it were true mimes are closer to the rule than the average person. Ever watch someone who was nervous give a speech? Most of their body language/tone doesn't match up. It's only when it becomes so distracting that I even notice and tune out words. I would say it's closer to 40% words/40% tone/20% body language. Why? If body language is so high we would just tune out everything and not listen. Also tone can make the words seem overly aggressive/disingenuous/not important ( I would probably notice this first tbh). If words weren't dominate we would all be focusing on someone flailing there arms with no actual substance.

��� Kuje, Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:25:04 UTC

I think the 7% rule is true and does applies appropriately in communication involving some form of relationship; Marriage, family, business or a team. This makes it possible to want to ration the idea that between a Mother and daughter conversation the non-verbal elements will commonly bring into play what was missing.

��� Oluchukwu Nnadozie, Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:42:26 UTC

We also don't know how well Lincoln's speech would have been received if the non-verbal components had been accessible. There's also something to be said about context. Lincoln's speech has a special place in America's heart because it's wrapped patriotism in a time when we were divided, a heroic attempt to save the country during one of the lowest points in American history. It's the same with MLK's I Have a Dream. The context makes these speeches go down in history probably more than the speeches themselves. Speaking of the 7% statistic being taken out of context when applied to normal conversation, I think it's clear that anyone trying to apply the 7% to speeches is just as guilty of faulty logic. I can't imagine the original study intended its results on communication to wielded so liberally, but here we are, I guess.

��� Blaise, Wed, 07 Jan 2015 21:59:08 UTC

It is really a great article, which I came accross when I was looking for the original work which gave birth to this well spread adage. Thanks for the informations and this support my thoughts about the adage. I will do my best to translate it to Arabic so that what I call the misunderstanding of the original work can be corrected. I believe that the nonverbal communication acounts for a determined percentage but that much (93%) Once again, thank for the effort and above all the courage to publish such an article.

��� Abdallah Sadaoui, Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:47:07 UTC

Happen to be doing research and ran across your paper. Please consider deeper research, whereas you are correct when you mentioned "what you say" in a speech is important, however it alone is not the most important. Instead, consider that three parts of persuasion are equally important: that is, Logic, Credibility and Emotion. I'm sure what I read may have been misinterpreted on my part (I apologize in advance if so) but if not, you seem to have a great interest in helping speechmakers and giving others more accurate information is always desirable. Keep up the great work!

��� Professor Miller Lucky, Mon, 06 Jan 2014 03:39:36 UTC

As a counter-example to Lincoln, here is the most quoted section of JFK's moon speech. "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." Do the other things? And the others, too? Truly stirring words. He might as well be saying "go team" based upon the actual meaning of his rhetoric. Why does it still resound then? Because it fills its purpose well, that purpose being an emotional appeal to greater achievement through unity. Looking at the words, you can tell that they aren't of primary importance. In fact, without the recording of that speech, I don't suppose it wouldn't be remembered much at all outside of its grand associations. As a leader speaking to the social mass of people, he was trying to convey nothing more than optimism. He wasn't attempting to explain a plan of action or communicate any particular concept. Not to sound too disparaging, but, while he individual may be rational and logical, the group, the human herd, responds quite strongly to all of the pre-conscious triggers and reflexes that we've inherited from our evolutionary process. I don't mean to sound like one of those "the great mob is wild and must be controlled" types from the days of Bernays, but it is true that addressing a crowd is primarily an emotional endeavor, not an informational one. It is not a presentation of data. As to the %, I agree that the study is extremely narrow and applies only to a specific circumstance. Even assigning a % to something like this is preposterous. What it does appear to show is that human judgement and confidence follows emotional lines, and that emotions are most easily expressed through non-verbal communication. As such, if you want someone to value what you say, how you say it is more important than the actual specifics. As a final thought, I might posit that 272 words, carefully chosen, seems to me not a speech. To me, that sounds very much like a poem.

��� chandler, Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:37:44 UTC

I think that it is true how mostly what people focus on is body language, tone, and other non-verbal communication.

��� Com Muni Cator, Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:21:59 UTC

thanks so much for this great help, great site! Keep it up.Will recommend this site to others. Oral Presentation

��� claudia , Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:34:36 UTC

Your article is well written, but seems rather incomplete in its examination and I would like to point out just a few concepts: I quote you "The whole objective of most speeches is to convey information, or to promote or defend a point of view" and "The essence of a good speech is what it says". The above is only part of the story, other objectives also include inspiring an audience and persuading them to align with the speakers point of view. These objectives are of primary importance. The true value of a speech is measured by how closely its effect on its audience matches its intended purpose. Even brilliantly written speeches that are poorly delivered can never be moving, meaningful or memorable to their audiences. Yet there are speakers that ramble and who are less than eloquent in their chosen words that are capable of moving great masses of people. I don't know how to measure the relative importance of words, voice tone and body language within a speech. I would suggest that it depends on the audience, the situation and the intent of the speaker. However, I would also suggest that the way in which words are used in a speech is of less relative importance than in written language, and possibly even secondary in some cases. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the subject of "Rhetoric" for further reading.

��� Christiaan Dednam, Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:31:09 UTC

Leave this field empty