In our modern world of convenience, we have many portals to communicate with people, especially without using in-person interactions or talking on the phone. We can communicate via email, through texts, with online and social media platforms, and with postal mail (for the few of us who still use it). These options provide more passive messaging options at our disposal that can be viewed and replied to immediately or at the whim of each individual’s schedule and availability. With so many technological options and advances, talking on the phone or face-to-face directly has become less frequent and perhaps even less preferable. In fact, there are jobs that are fully contingent on the ability to communicate without any direct human contact or live talking. Likewise, with today’s social climate, there are increasing jobs that are conducted remotely to maintain social distancing.
We all use at least some of these features and have adapted to its functions, accessibility, and ease with which to communicate, so we know the clear benefits of them. What about the potential negative aspects associated with modern communication methods? Based on Buffer’s 2020 State of Remote Work Survey, the workers rated that communication, collaboration, and loneliness were the most significant struggles of remote work. Research has shown that people feel less connected with online communications compared to when they talk in person or over the phone. By using any form of voice-based media (rather than text-based media), hearing someone’s voice, and interacting with them, individuals felt more connected and it played a role in bonding. This concept has been particularly trialing through the pandemic when we were forced to maintain physical distance from others. Researchers have studied why people still rely on text-based media for communications even when they felt more connected with voice communications. People reported mistaken beliefs and fears in which that they perceived a conversation on the phone would be more awkward and susceptible to being misunderstood. However, in reality, direct talking was more satisfying, created significantly stronger bonds by hearing a voice, and was not awkward as they anticipated. Another experiment asked participants to predict how they would feel in asking and answering a series of rather personal questions communicated either through live texting, audio only, or video chat. After engaging in the task through one of the three formats, participants reported feeling significantly more connected and no more awkward through voice-based communication rather than text-based. Thus, a strong sense of connection was established with a phone call rather than texting. Ultimately, the fact remains that maintaining social ties is imperative to both physical and mental health, and text-based media does not foster social connections in the same positive manner that voice-based communications elicit.
As we look ahead to a future of ongoing hybrid and/or remote work schedules and increased frequency of text-based communications, it is necessary to consider how talking directly with a person (on the phone or in person) can improve connections and help establish bonding and social ties. Likewise, research has highlighted that are misperceived expectations about communication can hinder us from using voice-based communication, however the benefits appear to outweigh the costs with regard to social interactions and overall well-being.