Face-To-Face Communication Is Superior to Computer-Mediated Communication When It Comes to Interpersonal Relationships

Technology is ever evolving in today’s day and age. The recent popularity of smartphones and laptops is starting to become more than a trend. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has become the main way that people are communicating with each other. Social media and messaging has essentially become part of our lifestyle, but when used incorrectly or in excess, it can lead to more negative effects than positive ones. There are more potential problems that can arise when one is involved in CMC than face-to-face (FTF) communication, such as misunderstanding of information. In fact, 91% of the individuals that took a survey say that they have encountered a misunderstanding when engaging in CMC. A deeper look into the realm of CMC and FTF communication reveals that FTF communication is still the preferred method of communication.

The Majority of People are Communicating Through Computer-Mediated Devices Rather Than Face-to-Face

People are communicating more through computer-mediated devices. Almost everyone in the U.S. owns a cellphone, laptop, or both. An astounding 100% of the individuals surveyed indicated that they own either a smartphone or laptop. Of these individuals, it was also found that the majority of them use their smartphone/computer for interpersonal communication to keep in touch with their family and friends.

It also seems that CMC is used more than FTF when communicating with others on a one to one basis. My survey concluded that 73% of individuals took part on CMC more than FTF communication.

Though more of the surveyed individuals tend to communicate through CMC, my on the street interviewees tend to favor FTF communication. Most of the interviewees state that they take part in CMC more than FTF communication, but they also state that they actually prefer FTF communication. The reason behind this is mainly because of proximity issues.

Though CMC is very useful in situations where proximity and time are major issues, most individuals are overusing it. One of the topics in a Research Paper written by Jean-Paul Van Belle is physical isolation. In this research paper, Van Belle finds that the lack of human contact in CMC leads to an increase of physical isolation in individuals.  It was also often stated that CMC could actually be detrimental to shy people, as they would be encouraged to use IM rather than take part in FTF interactions, and would therefore not develop social skills allowing them to meet other people face-to-face. This is definitely a huge negative consequence that can be eliminated by favoring FTF communication.

Face-to-face communication is preferred because it offers an overall better experience

A major aspect of interpersonal relationships is how effectively the two parties communicate. Interpersonal relationships rely on understanding one another. As sated before, misunderstandings occur frequently when taking part in CMC. This supports one of the claims of an Article written by Joseph B.  Walther. In this article Walther states “CMC prevents users from attuning to others’ individual characteristics, such as charisma, dominance, or affection, resulting in a cognitive reorientation of its users. The lack of nonverbal cues leads them to become self-focused and resistant to influence, disinhibited, belligerent, and affectively negative.” The tone in which we communicate in has a massive effect on how the message is received. This claim was confirmed by one of the interviewees.

Certain emotions and tones are easy incorporated into FTF communication by changing ones voice and adding hand movement. It is much easier to get the intended message across when communicating FTF. FTF discussions are the foundation of human communication, and once established it allows us to build trust, clearly articulate our ideas and minimize misunderstanding.

Another answer to my question of why one prefers CMC to FTF is because it seems more efficient. Efficiency is very important when individuals decide what type of communication they want to engage in.

Contrary to popular belief, FTF communication actually takes less effort to take part in than CMC. Although messages are sent quickly, sound travels much faster. The article by Walther includes a section on the “Efficiency Framework”. This part of the article dwells on the fact that “people are cognitive and behavioral misers and prefer to do a task using less effort than using more effort.” It goes on to state that, when compared with face-to-face communication, CMC is more effortful. Walther also states that, “CMC may be just as capable as face-to-face interaction in achieving task and social outcomes, but it requires more time and effort, which are inherently less desirable in most cases than doing things in an easier way.” This is true because much of today’s CMC relies on acronyms and emoticons. Though acronyms are meant to make messaging easier and faster, they can often be misinterpreted. Often times it is necessary to send an additional message to help decipher the original. The time that it takes to interpret certain messages just isn’t worth and thus, makes CMC less efficient when communicators are in the same room.  While in the vicinity of each other,  individuals can clearly articulate what they are trying to say and explain the points that they are trying to make.

Face-To-Face Communication is a superior means of communication

Communication is what connects all of us on Planet Earth. It is the imparting or exchanging of information or news from one to another. To build meaningful interpersonal relationships with others, we need to learn how to communicate effectively and efficiently. To do this we cannot keep abusing technology. The introduction of technology was meant to enhance our communication, rather than define it. When we utilize it too much we increase the risk of misinterpretation and physical isolation. Many people simply do not have their facts straight and believe that CMC is more efficient than FTF communication, but according to Walther, they are mistaken. Although easier does not always tend to equate to better, it certainly seems to be true in this case. The surveys and interviews that I conducted confirm the claims made in the papers written by Van Belle and Walther. Taking these truths into account it is ultimately concluded that FTF is a superior means of communication for interpersonal relationships when compared to CMC. The positives simply outweigh the negatives.

E-Cigarette Use Rises Among Teens in the U.S, but There Is No Proof of Whether This is a Good or Bad Thing.

The use of e-cigarettes is a rising concern for parents around the world. An e-cigarette, or electronic cigarette, is a battery-powered vaporizer, which produces a similar feel to tobacco smoking. Since e-cigarettes are a relatively new product, more and more information about them are revealed everyday. From this information, news outlets and bloggers broadcast facts about e-cigarettes in the media, but sometimes, they are biased in what they report.

News stories should inform the public about a certain event or trend rather than convince them to take their side on it. They should provide an article that equally represents an argument for and against or provide one that takes no stance on the topic. The public should have the right to form their own opinions and choose their own side after they are presented with all of the facts about the specific topic.  There are many facts about e-cigarettes that must be considered in order to produce an unbiased story about them. The first that needs to be considered is the fact that the number of middle and high school students using electronic cigarettes tripled from the year 2013 to 2014, according to the government figures that were released. Another fact is that the popularity of e-cigarettes among teenagers has now overtaken the popularity of traditional cigarettes. The same government figures that were previously mentioned state that, from 2011 to 2014, the share of high school students who smoked traditional cigarettes declined substantially, to 9 percent from 16 percent. The last fact that needs to be known is that there is no evidence that e-cigarette smokers turn out to be traditional smokers. A non-biased news article would not have a specific tone that favored a side, but remain neutral and present facts for the public to interpret.

I came across two articles and one blog about how the use of e-cigarettes among teens in the United States is rising and what that holds for the future. I found articles from The Boston Globe and The Washington Post and a Blog by Valerie Grison.  

The Boston Globe:

I found that the article from The Boston Globe entitled, “E-cigarette use spikes among American teens, report says”, was the least biased of the three. It starts with a presentation of the fact that e-cigarette use has substantially increased in recent years. It then does a good job of presenting two sides to this fact. One side suggests that some teens are using the newly developed e-cigarettes to quit smoking cigarettes or marijuana, while the other suggests that teens are doing it to look cool. It also does a great job of showing the two sides to another question. This question is whether or not e-cigarettes are undoing years of progress in influencing teens not to use nicotine products. Since there is no proof of whether it does or does not, I think that it was very smart of The Boston Globe to present one statement for each side. There is a statement from Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, who thinks that e-cigarettes are more harmful than good, and another from David Abrams (Executive director of the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies), who thinks that e-cigarettes are accelerating the gateway out of tobacco use among teens. This article was definitely covered the best and was the least biased because it presents views from both sides of the fence and portrays them equally, allowing the audience to formulate their own opinions.

The Washington Post:

The article form The Washington Post was entitled, “E-cigarette use triples among middle and high school students, study says”. This article did a good job of explaining the facts of the situation, but still subtly suggests that the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes is a problem. This article also tells us that use of e-cigarettes is increasing among teens and high school students. Though it does include a snippet from Michael Siegel (professional and tobacco-control specialist at Boston University) in favor of e-cigarettes, the majority of the article is about how e-cigarettes are do more harm than good. This article is somewhat biased because even though it presents views of those who favor e-cigarettes, the majority of the article is about how it should be a concern and that the increase in the use of e-cigarettes is not a good thing. There definitely should have been more about how the rise of e-cigarettes is a good thing. 

The Valerie Grison Blog:

The coverage of this topic in the Valerie Grison Blog was definitely the worst of the three. The title in itself, “A Dangerous Trend Among Teens and Tweens: E-Cigarettes” suggests that e-cigarettes are a bad trend. The entire blog is completely one sided and only provides facts and statements that are against e-cigarette use. It includes the fact that e-cigarette use is increasing among teens and continues to provide the audience with reasons of why they do more bad than good. It does not even mention that traditional cigarette use has decreased. The blog is a constant feed of information about how e-cigarettes are bad for you.

To provide a more complete story, this blog should have:

-       Included more statements about how e-cigarettes are a good trend

-       Included the fact that traditional cigarette use has lowered for the first time in many     years

-       Changed the title to portray a more neutral view of the topic

-       Presented the information while keeping a neutral stance

Obesity, Tobacco, and Alcohol Kill More People in the U.S. Than Ebola

     In 2014, ebola became a global health crisis. It did not, however, effect the United States as much as the news made it seem. The first picture is of a protestor in Washington, DC that is urging people to help stop planes from flying to different countries and bringing back contaminated passengers. He is dressed up in protective gear as if everyone around him is infected and is hyping up the drama that surrounds ebola. This photo shows ebola as a very dangerous disease that requires everyones attention immediately.

     The cartoon that is shown is also about ebola, but does not support the claims that the photo makes. The drawing shows that Americans are overreacting to the news of ebola and are looking past more important things like obesity, tobacco, and alcohol. There have only been a few recorded cases of ebola and an even fewer amounts of death from it in the United States, while obesity, tobacco, and alcohol have accumulated around 840,000 deaths per year. This cartoon shows us that ebola should not be something to fret about in the United States. This is just one example of how different pictures can take different sides of a news topic and tell completely different stories.

Bio

I am a sophomore physics major at the University of Maryland, College Park. I am originally from Lumberton, New Jersey. My interests include tennis, technology, and going to the gym. I chose to be a physics major because I am interested in exploring the unknowns of the universe and leaving behind a significant contribution to society.