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.
