Witness Preparation: Is 93% of Communication Non-Verbal?

If you've never heard that 93% of communication is non-verbal, you will. It's quoted in lectures and professional presentations; it's quoted in pop psychology magazines; and it's quoted in TV shows. Regardless of where you hear it or read it, it's not true in most cases. On face value alone, the oft-(mis) quoted 93% rule can't possibly be true for most communication situations. Just a few examples prove the point:

1. Text messages contain no nonverbal cues (unless you count emojis).

2. Emails contain no nonverbal cues.

3. Lectures rely almost exclusively on words.

4. Phone calls are devoid of body language.

5. Instructions from a boss or supervisor rely almost exclusively on words.

Imagine attempting to glean 93% of communication in the examples above based solely on nonverbal behavior – it would be impossible.

So when does the 93% of Communication is Non-Verbal rule apply? To answer that question, lets take a brief look at the rule's origin:

The 93% Communication Rule

In the late 1960s, researcher Albert Mehrabian and his colleagues found that a when the tone and body language associated with a statement were in-congruent with the actual words spoken, people derived more of the the meaning from the emotional tone and body language than from the actual words. The ratio was calculated to be 7% words, 38% tone and 55% gestures (body language). Thus, 38% + 55% = 93%, leaving 7% for words alone.

Misinterpretation

Once the 93% nonverbal communication "rule" made its way into popular culture the misinterpretation started and spread. People have taken Mehrabian's findings to mean that in all communication, words only account for 7% of the message, and tone of voice and body language account for the rest. Interestingly, Mehrabian has explicitly stated that the 7%-38%-55% "rule" is only appropriate in limited circumstances:

"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..."

Body Language on the Witness Stand

What does this have to do with witnesses? Quite a bit. While the 93% rule theoretically applies when the speaker is talking about feelings and attitudes, the rule (or something close to it), likely applies when witnesses are cross-examined at trial. This is because when jurors are trying to figure out who to believe, they are forced to rely much on nonverbal cues much more than they do in everyday communication (for a deeper explanation of this phenomenon see here).

In the context of trial testimony, particularly cross-examination, the voice tone and body language of witnesses often contradicts or betrays the words the witness speaks. This body language/word in-congruity can have many causes: e.g., nervousness, frustration, anxiety, and anger exacerbated by opposing counsel's aggressive questioning or rhetorical and emotional attacks. Regardless of the cause, when a witness' tone of voice or body language contradicts the testimony he's giving, jurors typically believe what they see rather than what they hear. This hold true even if the answer is as simple as "no."

Did you shred that document?

Imagine a corporate witness being asked on cross-examination if he shredded a key document. The witness squirms a bit, scratches his head, looks up and to the left, and timidly says, "no..." (To read the rest of the article click here).

Click here to learn about story telling in opening statements

Click here to learn about how ideology affects juror decision making

Click here to learn how to improve juror participation in voir dire