What do you think?
Rate this book
Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes
Book by Mehrabian, Albert
196 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
9 people are currently reading
540 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 2, 2025
So my youngest quoted something to me a few weeks back that he heard in a communications class about how only 7% of communication was actual text, 38% is tone of voice/vocal characterization, and 55% was facial expression. I agreed that non-verbal accounts for maybe 40-60%, but thought that 7% for actual text was way too low. He dug up the citation and I decided to read the book in search of the methodology that supports these numbers.
As an aside, I have long argued in the house that the text is less important than the delivery, often giving an example of (when raising two boys) calling your brother an asshole in a nice voice is better (if it is meant as a joke/friendly banter) than calling him a marshmellow with hate in the tone. This also meant that I always allowed swearing (because it is important to learn context for moderating one's behavior in public company) even at a young age. While there have certainly been some funny tales around this choice in parenting, I still stand by the fact that intent is often more important than word choice. I also am very passionate about truth. In my life, I frequently tell people my truth (not what they want to hear) and get very frustrated when loved ones don't treat me with the same respect. I have also been criticized by friends and loved ones for being "too honest" and using the truth as a weapon. So, while I know (and preach, depending on who is characterizing my behavior) that intent and delivery is more important than words. I also insist that my word choice is the most important (because I speak the truth!) and when my body language or tone of voice disagree with the words ask folks to rely on the words. I realize this is somewhat hypocritical and also get deeply frustrated when folks don't take me at face value.
All of that aside, I read this book in search of evidence for specific numeric breakdown (which I think is hogwash..despite being a social scientist I do not believe in the pure quantitative interpretation of human activity---not only because it is impossible to quantify qualitiative processes but also because the act of studying changes the behavior of humans). And, Mehrabian comes up short. With regards to his equation he literally states: "numerical values...are only approximate." He cites lots of social psych research (some of which is his own) about the importance not only of tone of voice and body langauage, but spatial design, power dynamics, cultural expectations, and other implicit undertones within interactions to support his "equation"...but there is no way to attribute any numerical quantitites to this concept that applies across all interactions in every way. And to do so, in my (never humble) opinion is misleading and ridiculous.
However, the book itself was an interesting read. Originally written in 1971 and updated in 1981 (I read the updated version), it is still grossly out of date in 2025. And yet, his theory is compelling. He argues that feelings can be fully understood within the interactions of three observable dynamics: pleasant/unpleasant, aroused/unaroused, and dominant/submissive. For example, in a pleasant situation in which I am unaroused and feel dominant (maybe lying in my own bed) I feel relaxed. In an unpleasant situation in which I am unaroused and feel dominant (maybe late at night driving home) I am bored. When we interact with others, we express liking through approach and avoidance in part as a way to indicate our own willingness to be dominant or submissive as well as our interest (arousal/engagement). He goes on to apply this to political and advertising persuasion techniques as well as interpersonal interactions (and why some folks have a hard time getting others to like them).
He also makes a strong argument about humans inability to cloak their "real feeling" in a situation. He leans into the social expectations to "play nice" to argue that our verbals must be socially acceptable, while other, subtle cues send the real (and contradictory) message. I get this, and agree, but also think that part of the theory and exposition relies too much on the assumption that people will always want to be socially accepted. I think "polite" society has changed (especially since 1971) and more folks are wiling to "speak their truth" in potentially upsetting ways. This theory also complete ignores/negates the experience of folks on the autism spectrum who simply do not understand or engage in the nuance of "doublespeak".
Personally, I have often been struck by a difference between myself and my husband when interacting with others (from new friends/acquantances to our children/other close family members). I am rather dominant and straightforward and espouse the (as noted above) concept of being direct and truthful. He is a "people pleaser" and will (not necessarily lie, but...) present himself in a way that is most appealing to his audience. As a result, I am more frequently interpreted as cold, a bit uncaring, and maybe even inauthentic. He is better liked and seen as genuine and caring. The irony here is that I am actually more authentic. Mehrabian notes: "We do not use words and behaviors of dominance, if for no other reason than that they are not generally effective in getting us what we want and need from others." But I do. And he is right, they frequently don't.
Overall it was an interesting read, if a bit out of date.
As an aside, I have long argued in the house that the text is less important than the delivery, often giving an example of (when raising two boys) calling your brother an asshole in a nice voice is better (if it is meant as a joke/friendly banter) than calling him a marshmellow with hate in the tone. This also meant that I always allowed swearing (because it is important to learn context for moderating one's behavior in public company) even at a young age. While there have certainly been some funny tales around this choice in parenting, I still stand by the fact that intent is often more important than word choice. I also am very passionate about truth. In my life, I frequently tell people my truth (not what they want to hear) and get very frustrated when loved ones don't treat me with the same respect. I have also been criticized by friends and loved ones for being "too honest" and using the truth as a weapon. So, while I know (and preach, depending on who is characterizing my behavior) that intent and delivery is more important than words. I also insist that my word choice is the most important (because I speak the truth!) and when my body language or tone of voice disagree with the words ask folks to rely on the words. I realize this is somewhat hypocritical and also get deeply frustrated when folks don't take me at face value.
All of that aside, I read this book in search of evidence for specific numeric breakdown (which I think is hogwash..despite being a social scientist I do not believe in the pure quantitative interpretation of human activity---not only because it is impossible to quantify qualitiative processes but also because the act of studying changes the behavior of humans). And, Mehrabian comes up short. With regards to his equation he literally states: "numerical values...are only approximate." He cites lots of social psych research (some of which is his own) about the importance not only of tone of voice and body langauage, but spatial design, power dynamics, cultural expectations, and other implicit undertones within interactions to support his "equation"...but there is no way to attribute any numerical quantitites to this concept that applies across all interactions in every way. And to do so, in my (never humble) opinion is misleading and ridiculous.
However, the book itself was an interesting read. Originally written in 1971 and updated in 1981 (I read the updated version), it is still grossly out of date in 2025. And yet, his theory is compelling. He argues that feelings can be fully understood within the interactions of three observable dynamics: pleasant/unpleasant, aroused/unaroused, and dominant/submissive. For example, in a pleasant situation in which I am unaroused and feel dominant (maybe lying in my own bed) I feel relaxed. In an unpleasant situation in which I am unaroused and feel dominant (maybe late at night driving home) I am bored. When we interact with others, we express liking through approach and avoidance in part as a way to indicate our own willingness to be dominant or submissive as well as our interest (arousal/engagement). He goes on to apply this to political and advertising persuasion techniques as well as interpersonal interactions (and why some folks have a hard time getting others to like them).
He also makes a strong argument about humans inability to cloak their "real feeling" in a situation. He leans into the social expectations to "play nice" to argue that our verbals must be socially acceptable, while other, subtle cues send the real (and contradictory) message. I get this, and agree, but also think that part of the theory and exposition relies too much on the assumption that people will always want to be socially accepted. I think "polite" society has changed (especially since 1971) and more folks are wiling to "speak their truth" in potentially upsetting ways. This theory also complete ignores/negates the experience of folks on the autism spectrum who simply do not understand or engage in the nuance of "doublespeak".
Personally, I have often been struck by a difference between myself and my husband when interacting with others (from new friends/acquantances to our children/other close family members). I am rather dominant and straightforward and espouse the (as noted above) concept of being direct and truthful. He is a "people pleaser" and will (not necessarily lie, but...) present himself in a way that is most appealing to his audience. As a result, I am more frequently interpreted as cold, a bit uncaring, and maybe even inauthentic. He is better liked and seen as genuine and caring. The irony here is that I am actually more authentic. Mehrabian notes: "We do not use words and behaviors of dominance, if for no other reason than that they are not generally effective in getting us what we want and need from others." But I do. And he is right, they frequently don't.
Overall it was an interesting read, if a bit out of date.
June 30, 2020
Interesting book. The analysis of emotion as a factor of three axes: pleasure - displeasure, arousal - nonarousal and dominance - submissiveness, linked to liking and disliking is very useful, as is the theory of (abbreviated) approach behaviours, which signal most of these emotions.
Other elements, specifically some gestures, language cues and social circumstances are less universal in human culture as the author claims. He doesn’t take that into account, which makes this a rather America-centred book.
Often the conclusions of this book and its research are misquoted and misinterpreted as “93% of all communication is non-verbal”. In the introduction of this second edition Mehrabian immediately makes clear that this is right ONLY for the emotional part of the communication, not for its contents. If anything, I enjoyed having my idea on that theme confirmed.
Other elements, specifically some gestures, language cues and social circumstances are less universal in human culture as the author claims. He doesn’t take that into account, which makes this a rather America-centred book.
Often the conclusions of this book and its research are misquoted and misinterpreted as “93% of all communication is non-verbal”. In the introduction of this second edition Mehrabian immediately makes clear that this is right ONLY for the emotional part of the communication, not for its contents. If anything, I enjoyed having my idea on that theme confirmed.
Read
December 7, 2020no rating, because I didn't read it in full, but intend to one day. Read it for class.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews