There are a couple of interesting articles on Trainingzone about the way in which facts, figures or statistics can be introduced in to training programmes without checks on their authenticity. Two of the most commonly used studies are exposed.
Firstly, the proposition that the retention rates for different presentation methodologies are:
10% read
20% hear
30% see
90% do
It would appear that these figures have no basis in fact.
More here
Secondly, the the oft quoted communication statistics of...
55% Body language
38% verbal
7% words
...needs to be couched in very specific terms, in particular we need to be aware that the study by Professor Albert Mehrabian identified preferences in the context of feelings. He explains 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."
And yet in many cases these statistics are used to explain communication in a more general context.
More here
It's very hard to find the time to track down the source of every statistical reference that we use, but examples like these only serve to highlight the importance of making sure that we are aware of the limitations of the information that we quote in our training.
4 months ago
