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.