Writing for an Academic Discussion Digital communication and ability to form meaningful relationships

Have instant messaging and digital communication improved or hindered our ability to form meaningful relationships?

 

  

☆Let’s Think

1.        Do you ever feel that the communication is less meaningful when you send an email or a Line message to someone or others? If so, in what situation do you have the experience?

e.g. contacting your family and friends/exchanging ideas about a project in a group/apologizing/

 

2.        Read the following excerpt from a Nature article, and answer the following question:

Question: Put the following three types of communication in the order of predictability of (importance for) mental health (well-being) during the pandemic,

【digital text communication, videoconferencing, face-to-face communication】

1.                                  2.                             3.

 

Discussion: Our results are clear: face-to-face communication was much more important for lockdown mental health than digital communication. Similarly, a longitudinal study from the advent of the Internet in the 1990s found that more Internet use led to less face-to-face contact and increases in depression and loneliness—it seems that this overall picture has not much changed until today. The multitude of digital communication devices and services available in the Western world still appear to be unequal substitutes for face-to-face interaction still being ‘the gold standard’. That said, our results also suggest that digital text communication was meaningfully predictive of mental health, albeit to a lesser extent than face-to-face communication. Interestingly, both face-to-face communication and digital text communication were stronger predictors of lockdown mental health than either physical and outdoor activity—two established positive predictors of mental health.

Why is face-to-face communication so much more important for mental health than digital communication? Researchers have long noted that far less information about the social context is available in the digital than in the face-to-face setting, such as the cues about the personality and social status of the communication partners (as displayed through e.g., clothing and behavior), or social norms (e.g., who sits where in a conference room). The depersonalization and deindividualization of communication partners in the digital setting may explain why digital communication is less relevant for mental health than face-to-face communication (depersonalization theory). Social engagement and attachment theory suggests that cues such as body language, voice pitch, mimic, eye gaze, and head position allow both the expression and reception of social cues, which in turn reduce the perceived psychological distance between communication partners. Digital communication may not activate the largely subconscious, neurophysiological tools which have evolved in order to help humans determine who is friend, and who is foe.

Against the backdrop of depersonalization theory as well as social engagement and attachment theory, it is curious that digital text communication was much more predictive of lockdown mental health than videoconferencing, even though videoconferencing allows communication partners to experience many more visual and audible cues than digital text communication. Recent research and anecdotal reports show that videoconferencing can cause adverse effects such as mental tiredness (‘Zoom fatigue’); anxiety due to a focus on appearance, prolonged eye contact, larger faces due to screen size, and the perceived dominance of a communication partner due to low camera position; and cognitive burden due to the slight technological asynchrony of video calls. Furthermore, it could be that in our sample videoconferencing was predominantly used in work situation and less private situations because many companies sent their employees into home-office to work from there. More detailed research on the mental health costs and benefits of videoconferencing is urgently needed, particularly because videoconferencing is increasingly discussed as an effective means for delivering psychotherapy and telehealth. A further important avenue for future research may be to explore whether using virtual reality glasses to interact with an avatar of a communication partner would have a similar effect on mental health as face-to-face communication, as the interaction would be experienced visually as well as physically.

Conclusion: In conclusion, despite living in a highly technological world, particularly in industrialized western nations, the numerous technological devices and services available cannot replace the mental health and well-being benefits of in-person communication. The future will show whether further technological advances, such as 5G or virtual reality, can elevate our online social communication to a level comparable to a real-life face-to-face interaction.  (Underlined by yours truly Sasaki)

 

 

☆Hints for Points

・Texting increases chances to contact people, including school counsellors or dentists.

・Important communication such as apologizing is done face-to-face.

・Texting is much less effective in expressing personality or individuality than communicating in person.

・Digital communication allows you to take time in deep thought in exchanging ideas about a project or making a suggestion to your community members.

・Opportunities of personal communication have reduced because of the frequent use of e-mail.

・People are enjoying their personal communication more than ever by e-mailing and text messaging.

・Information Technology has deprived us much of the personal area in our communication.

・In some cases, e-mail seems to make personal communication more possible than before.

 

 

☆Sample Responses   The underlined parts are mentions to counter-argument.

Sample A

I mostly agree with Jane in that digital communication enhances our ability to build meaningful relationships. As she says, online communication helps us overcome physical barrier in communication and allow us to contact people anywhere on the earth. It is also beyond time zones, allowing us to send messages and responding them anytime at our convenience. Moreover, it allows shy people to express themselves more freely than in interaction in person. These functions expand changes of interaction and helps to know each other more deeply. The caveat is that digital communication, including video messages, cannot beat interactions with real humans in non-virtual settings. No matter how much these tools get sophisticated and allow us interactions accompanied by non-verbal communication, the interactions realized by them cannot displace warmth of the existence of other life. Thus, digital communication is effective in bonding only as a compensation for real communication. (147 words)

 

Sample B

I agree with Jeff in terms of shallowness of digital communication. Although it allows us more chances to interact with others, short and quick messaging makes us tend to send cookie-cutter comments or replies. Sometimes, we just send an emoji or a link without any lines. These interactions lack personality and individuality. For example, a line “Thank you” lacks personal touch because it is not accompanied by voice or facial expression. It is the same “Thank you” no matter who puts it. A heart mark could mean great but it could also mean just ok. It could even mean “read”. A thumb-up emoji erases our individual feelings of praise, appreciation, or gratitude. They are unified into the same cheap icon. I sometimes feel totalitarianism in responding to a message with others in a Line group, and totalitarianism or fascism means death of individualism. This deteriorates our ability to have rich, meaningful communication that could be naturally done in face-to-face communication. (150 words)

 

Sample C

In the terms of intimate communication, the total time we spend on it seems to have reduced owing to the development of e-mail functions. What used to be done in person before is now done online. Mother-and-child exchanges are often done by text messages. Business is done only through exchanges of e-mail more often than before. It is not uncommon that employees in the same company who have never met or talked on the phone have been working on a project together through e-mailing for years. In this circumstance, personal interaction between workers will be extremely reduced. As emailing is faster, both good news and bad news are reported before meeting in person and as a result, some significant moments of life such as child-birth are not directly shared now. Reading the message of your beloved is less personal than meeting them. These losses of direct communication weaken relationships. On the other hand, it is also a fact that emails and texts contribute to intimate communication. They help people communicate with their family and friends even when they are away from each other. You can also receive or send personal messages even while you are at work or in class. This was impossible before the service was invented. But the enhancement was possible only when good relationships already exit. Thus, I think digital communication is making us more separated than close-knit.