Improve Attractiveness with Body Language [infographic]

August 10, 2011 |  by  |  Lifestyle
Pinterest

Actions speak louder than words… no really. According to today’s infographic from 100 Best Dating Sites, this adage is especially true at the start of a romantic relationship. Small non-verbal cues—a smile, length of eye contact, and posture—communicate more to potential romantic interests than that clever line carefully mined from a Hugh Grant flick (though that never hurts).

The infographic dissects several ways the body communicates and gives some hints for both women and men. Regardless of gender, “crinkly eyed” smiles are considered more sincere, and the 0.5 second smile effectively bridges the gap between smirking and faking. The infographic also gives tips on appearing more confident.

Whether you are a master of first impressions or your pick-up routine leaves something to be desired, approximately 55% of communication is made before you say anything; effectively master the art of body language and your interpersonal interactions just might improve. [Best Dating Sites]

Infographic about using body language to be more attractive

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This Infographic

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest

Get Free Infographics Delivered to your Inbox

SUBSCRIBE BY RSS


  • Geoffrey

    So sad to see you have taken great research and used it out of context

    Mehrabian Communication Research

    Professor Albert Mehrabian’s communications model:

    Professor Albert Mehrabian a leading pioneer the understanding of communications since the 1960′s. He received his Ph.D. 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.

    Aside from his many and various other fascinating works, Mehrabian established this classic statistic for the effectiveness of spoken communications:
        •     7% of meaning is in the words that are spoken.
        •      38% of meaning is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
        •      55% of meaning is in non-verbal communications.

    Non-verbal clues include:
        •      Body language (e.g., arms crossed, standing, sitting, relaxed, tense),
        •      Emotion of the sender and receiver (e.g., yelling, speaking provocatively, enthusiastic)
        •      Other connections between the people (e.g., friends, enemies, professional similarities and or differences, personal similarities or differences, age similarities or differences, philosophical similarities or differences, attitudes, expectations).

    Mehrabian’s model above has become one of the most widely referenced statistics in communications.  However, it is arguably on occasions applied in an overly simplistic or indiscriminate manner.

    The model is particularly useful in illustrating the importance of considering factors other than words alone when trying to convey (as the speaker) or interpret (as the listener) meaning – but care needs to be taken when considering the context of the communication.

    Style, expression, tone, facial expression and non-verbal communications were 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 or even all communications situation- (it was not applied to public speaking – but to personal communications in a face to face situation).

    The understanding of how to convey (when speaking) and interpret (when listening) meaning is 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 , public speaking 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, and then so the effectiveness of the communication reduces in line with the classically represented Mehrabian percentages. It is not 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 floored.

    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.

    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 video store. 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 massive benefits for modern organization 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.

    More information about Dr Albert Mehrabian and his fascinating work see his website.
    http://www.kaaj.com/psych/

    Note: for more information go to
    http://www1.chapman.edu/comm/comm/faculty/thobbs/com401/nonverb.html

    Professor Albert Mehrabian, published in his 1971 book, Silent Messages.  Another source, (Chapman University  “What is Non-Verbal Communication”) is listed as Albert Mehrabian  [Nonverbal Communication  (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972)

  • Pingback: Master The Art Of Body Language For Dating | Lifehacker Australia

  • Mark Monnin

    #corrections
    “59% of women were interested an the ‘ideal’ single man” -> “59% of women were interested in the ‘ideal’ single man”
    “hand in your pocket or under his jacket, etc.” -> pick “your” or “his” unless you mean *her* pocket
    “A person of lower status typically sit’s second” -> “A person of lower status typically sits second”
    “A person who is weak typically takes up less space, for example by, crossing his legs” -> “A person who is weak typically takes up less space, for example, by crossing his legs”
    “The happy go-lucky type is seen as less sexually attractive to women, while men who seemed borderline pompous or brooding and moody, are seen as attractive.” -> “The happy-go-lucky type is seen as less sexually attractive to women, while men who seem borderline pompous or brooding and moody are seen as attractive.”

  • Pingback: Usar el lenguaje corporal para ser más atractivo [Infografía] | Woratek

  • Pingback: Why body language is so important | Language Museum

  • Pingback: How Long to Smile « Bad for Shidduchim

  • JimyBow
  • Pingback: All you wanted to know about body language | Gen X Journey

  • Pingback: The social navigation - Predictions based on the digital now | Capping IT Off | Capgemini

  • Pingback: The social navigation – Predictions based on the digital now | Robert Fransgaard

  • http://elitebestdatingsites.com/ Best Dating Sites

    Be pompous, broody and moody in order to attract women.  Great protip, thanks.

  • http://www.jokesmantra.com/ Mohit

    Really Helpful Tips For Improving Body Language..

  • Pingback: Commulink