☆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
chances 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 human beings Thus, digital
communication is effective in bonding only as a compensation for real
communication. (144 words)
Sample B
I agree
with Jeff in terms of shallowness of digital communication. Although the
technology allows us more opportunities 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 fails to convey 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.
(163 words)
Sample C
In terms
of intimate communication, the total time we spend on it seems to have reduced since
the advent of digital communication. What used to be done in person before is
now done online. Mother-and-child exchanges are often done by text messages.
Business is often done only through exchanges of e-mails. It is not uncommon
that business associates 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 interactions will be extremely reduced as reading a
message is usually less intimate than meeting in person. These losses of direct
communication weaken relationships. Meanwhile, text messaging and emails can
also contribute close-knit relationships. They help people overcome the
constraints of time and space. Family and friends can contact each other even
when they are away from each other and even while they are at work or in class.
This was impossible before the services were invented. But the enhancement is
possible only when good relationships already exist. Thus, in general, digital
communication is making us more separated than close-knit. (193 words)
Sample D
I cannot
take a stand. On the one hand, digital communication is only a technological
means, which might not be so powerful as to make fundamental changes in our
communication, which depends on various factors such as personalities and
social skills, while on the other hand, we all feel things are not
really the same as before and have an impression that many are benefitting from
new ways of communication. In terms of contents, they allow us to know each
other, including strangers, more deeply than ever because numerous personal
opinions, personal pictures, and many other kinds of personal information are now
uploaded for everyone to see, due to casualness of online digital messages,
which can be written in very rough or intimate ways, and anonymity, which lowers
the hesitation of expression. Chances to share the same feelings and thoughts
are higher than before because of the open, or inclusive, nature of information
technology. However, this does not always help build good relationships in the
real world, where we are not free from various constraints of life such as character
and personal history.
(183
words)
DRAFT
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿
注: コメントを投稿できるのは、このブログのメンバーだけです。