Condi Rice & Confidence Markers
While most of the world was watching the Condoleeza Rice testimony yesterday for the political discourse, folks in our firm were watching the behavioral discourse, and in particular, the extent to which she projected “confidence markers.”
Confidence markers are the relatively small set of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that communicate certainty to an audience. They also strongly contribute to persuasiveness, and they’re well documented in the interpersonal communication literature. What’s important is that they’re all behaviors a speaker can focus on and control, which is why we tell clients confidence isn’t something you feel as much as it’s something you project.
So what are the confidence markers? We break them into two groups: verbal and nonverbal. Verbal markers include:
* Intense Language: The degree to which language deviates from neutrality. “Overwhelmed” is more intense than “influenced”; “horrified” is more intense than “scared.”
* Vivid Detail: Information can be characterized as vivid to the extent it is concrete, image-provoking, emotionally interesting, and personally relevant. The key is the degree of detail present in the information. “I pored over the weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports,” rather than, “I reviewed the relevant materials.”
* Strong Qualifiers: Terms that increase or emphasize the certainty of a claim. “Undoubtedly,” “surely,” “absolutely,” “without question.”
Nonverbal confidence markers include:
* Tempo and Tempo Variation: Moderate to relatively faster rates and varying the rate of speaking conveys confidence.
* Vocal Variety: Interest in the topic and clarity of meaning are facilitated by variety in pitch and intonation.
* Maintaining and Balancing Eye Contact: Attributions of confidence and trustworthiness increase when a speaker engages in longer lasting, direct eye contact and spreads eye contact evenly with every member of the audience.
* Facial Expressiveness and Smiles: Facial activity, as long as it does not undermine a generally serious expression, is associated with high levels of confidence.
Just as there are markers that project confidence, there are also markers that project diffidence, or uncertainty. They include:
* Nonwords: The excessive use of verbal hesitations or meaningless participles that make the speaker appear powerless and ineffective. “Uh,” “um,” “okay,” “you know,” “like.”
* Hedges: Qualifying statements that reduce the force of an assertion by allowing for exceptions or avoiding strong commitments. “I think,” “maybe,” “I hope,” “sort of."
* Empty Adjectives and Adverbial Intensifiers: Terms that detract from, rather than enhance, the words they modify. “Good,” “cute,” and “interesting” are examples of empty adjectives. “Very,” “rather,” and “quite” are examples of empty adverbial intensifiers.
* Vocal Monotone: Lack of intonation, often accompanied by low volume, results in an overly formal, “presentational” speaking style.
* Absence of Gestures: The lack of gesturing or the rigid or repetitive use of hands indicates uncertainty. Examples include fiddling with pens, rings, pointers, tentative gestures below the waist, or a complete lack of hand or arm movement.
Our take on the Rice testimony was “lots of diffidence markers, and not many confidence markers,” and it was no surprise to us that much of the punditry this morning was “she stuck to her guns, but wasn’t very persuasive.” Her vocal variety was relatively monotone, she used few gestures, and in particular, she used many non-words, hedges, and weak qualifiers. Compare her testimony, which you may see here, to that of Richard Clarke, which you may see here (second listing on the page), and you’ll see a difference.