how technology affects communication essay

Visual Life

• Creative Projects
• Write Here!

Karunaratne, Indika & Atukorale, Ajantha & Perera, Hemamali. (2011). Surveillance of human- computer interactions: A way forward to detection of users' Psychological Distress. 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering, CHUSER 2011. 10.1109/CHUSER.2011.6163779.

June 9, 2023 / 1 comment / Reading Time: ~ 12 minutes

The Digital Revolution: How Technology is Changing the Way We Communicate and Interact

This article examines the impact of technology on human interaction and explores the ever-evolving landscape of communication. With the rapid advancement of technology, the methods and modes of communication have undergone a significant transformation. This article investigates both the positive and negative implications of this digitalization. Technological innovations, such as smartphones, social media, and instant messaging apps, have provided unprecedented accessibility and convenience, allowing people to connect effortlessly across distances. However, concerns have arisen regarding the quality and authenticity of these interactions. The article explores the benefits of technology, including improved connectivity, enhanced information sharing, and expanded opportunities for collaboration. It also discusses potential negative effects including a decline in in-person interactions, a loss of empathy, and an increase in online anxiety. This article tries to expand our comprehension of the changing nature of communication in the digital age by exposing the many ways that technology has an impact on interpersonal interactions. It emphasizes the necessity of intentional and thoughtful communication techniques to preserve meaningful connections in a society that is becoming more and more reliant on technology.

Introduction:

Technology has significantly transformed our modes of communication and interaction, revolutionizing the way we connect with one another over the past few decades. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst, expediting this transformative process, and necessitating our exclusive reliance on digital tools for socializing, working, and learning. Platforms like social media and video conferencing have emerged in recent years, expanding our options for virtual communication. The impact of these changes on our lives cannot be ignored. In this article, we will delve into the ways in which technology has altered our communication and interaction patterns and explore the consequences of these changes for our relationships, mental well-being, and society.

To gain a deeper understanding of this topic, I have conducted interviews and surveys, allowing us to gather firsthand insights from individuals of various backgrounds. Additionally, we will compare this firsthand information with the perspectives shared by experts in the field. By drawing on both personal experiences and expert opinions, we seek to provide a comprehensive analysis of how technology influences our interpersonal connections. Through this research, we hope to get a deeper comprehension of the complex interactions between technology and people, enabling us to move mindfully and purposefully through the rapidly changing digital environment.

The Evolution of Communication: From Face-to-Face to Digital Connections:

In the realm of communication, we have various mediums at our disposal, such as face-to-face interactions, telephone conversations, and internet-based communication. According to Nancy Baym, an expert in the field of technology and human connections, face-to-face communication is often regarded as the most personal and intimate, while the phone provides a more personal touch than the internet. She explains this in her book Personal Connections in the Digital Age by stating, “Face-to-face is much more personal; phone is personal as well, but not as intimate as face-to-face… Internet would definitely be the least personal, followed by the phone (which at least has the vocal satisfaction) and the most personal would be face-to-face” (Baym 2015).  These distinctions suggest that different communication mediums are perceived to have varying levels of effectiveness in conveying emotion and building relationships. This distinction raises thought-provoking questions about the impact of technology on our ability to forge meaningful connections. While the internet offers unparalleled convenience and connectivity, it is essential to recognize its limitations in reproducing the depth of personal interaction found in face-to-face encounters. These limitations may be attributed to the absence of nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice, which are vital elements in understanding and interpreting emotions accurately.

Traditionally, face-to-face interactions held a prominent role as the primary means of communication, facilitating personal and intimate connections. However, the rise of technology has brought about significant changes, making communication more convenient but potentially less personal. The rise of phones, instant messaging, and social media platforms has revolutionized how we connect with others. While these digital tools offer instant connectivity and enable us to bridge geographical distances, they introduce a layer of blockage that may impact the depth and quality of our interactions. It is worth noting that different communication mediums have their strengths and limitations. Phone conversations, for instance, retain a certain level of personal connection through vocal interactions, allowing for the conveyance of emotions and tones that text-based communication may lack. However, even with this advantage, phone conversations still fall short of the depth and richness found in face-to-face interactions, as they lack visual cues and physical presence.

Internet-based communication, on the other hand, is considered the least personal medium. Online interactions often rely on text-based exchanges, which may not fully capture the nuances of expression, tone, and body language. While the internet offers the ability to connect with a vast network of individuals and share information on a global scale, it may not facilitate the same depth and authenticity that in-person or phone conversations can provide. As a result, establishing meaningful connections and building genuine relationships in an online setting can be challenging. Research and observations support these ideas. Figure 1. titled “Social Interaction after Electronic Media Use,” shows the potential impact of electronic media on social interaction (source: ResearchGate). This research highlights the need to carefully consider the effects of technology on our interpersonal connections. While technology offers convenience and connectivity, it is essential to strike a balance, ensuring that we do not sacrifice the benefits of face-to-face interactions for the sake of digital convenience.

Figure 1:  Increased reliance on electronic media has led to a noticeable decrease in social interaction.

The Limitations and Effects of Digital Communication

In today’s digital age, the limitations and effects of digital communication are becoming increasingly evident. While the phone and internet offer undeniable benefits such as convenience and the ability to connect with people regardless of geographical distance, they fall short in capturing the depth and richness of a face-to-face conversation. The ability to be in the same physical space as the person we’re communicating with, observing their facial expressions, body language, and truly feeling their presence, is something unique and irreplaceable.

Ulrike Schultze, in her thought-provoking TED Talk titled “How Social Media Shapes Identity,” delves further into the impact of digital communication on our lives by stating, “we construct the technology, but the technology also constructs us. We become what technology allows us to become” (Schultze 2015). This concept highlights how our reliance on digital media for interaction has led to a transformation in how we express ourselves and relate to others.

The influence of social media has been profound in shaping our communication patterns and interpersonal dynamics. Research conducted by Kalpathy Subramanian (2017) examined the influence of social media on interpersonal communication, highlighting the changes it brings to the way we interact and express ourselves (Subramanian 2017). The study found that online communication often involves the use of abbreviations, emoticons, and hashtags, which have become embedded in our online discourse. These digital communication shortcuts prioritize speed and efficiency, but they also contribute to a shift away from the physical action of face-to-face conversation, where nonverbal cues and deeper emotional connections can be fostered.

Additionally, the study emphasizes the impact of social media on self-presentation and identity construction. With the rise of platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, individuals have a platform to curate and present themselves to the world. This online self-presentation can influence how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us, potentially shaping our identities in the process. The study further suggests that the emphasis on self-presentation and the pressure to maintain a certain image on social media can lead to increased stress and anxiety among users.

Interviews:

I conducted interviews with individuals from different age groups to gain diverse perspectives on how technology and social media have transformed the way we connect with others. By exploring the experiences of a 21-year-old student and an individual in their 40s, we can better understand the evolving dynamics of interpersonal communication in the digital age. These interviews shed light on the prevalence of digital communication among younger generations, their preference for convenience, and the concerns raised by individuals from older age groups regarding the potential loss of deeper emotional connections.

When I asked the 21-year-old classmate about how technology has changed the way they interact with people in person, they expressed, “To be honest, I spend more time texting, messaging, or posting on social media than actually talking face-to-face with others. It’s just so much more convenient.” This response highlights the prevalence of digital communication among younger generations and their preference for convenience over traditional face-to-face interactions. It suggests that technology has significantly transformed the way young people engage with others, with a greater reliance on virtual interactions rather than in-person conversations. Additionally, the mention of convenience as a driving factor raises questions about the potential trade-offs in terms of depth and quality of interpersonal connections.

To gain insight from an individual in their 40s, I conducted another interview. When asked about their experiences with technology and social media, they shared valuable perspectives. They mentioned that while they appreciate the convenience and accessibility offered by technology, they also expressed concerns about its impact on interpersonal connections. They emphasized the importance of face-to-face interactions in building genuine relationships and expressed reservations about the potential loss of deeper emotional connections in digital communication. Additionally, they discussed the challenges of adapting to rapid technological advancements and the potential generational divide in communication preferences.

Comparing the responses from both interviews, it is evident that there are generational differences in the perception and use of technology for communication. While the 21-year-old classmate emphasized convenience as a primary factor in favor of digital communication, the individual in their 40s highlighted the importance of face-to-face interactions and expressed concerns about the potential loss of meaningful connections in the digital realm. This comparison raises questions about the potential impact of technology on the depth and quality of interpersonal relationships across different age groups. It also invites further exploration into how societal norms and technological advancements shape individuals’ preferences and experiences.

Overall, the interviews revealed a shift towards digital communication among both younger and older individuals, with varying perspectives. While convenience and connectivity are valued, concerns were raised regarding the potential drawbacks, including the pressure to maintain an idealized online presence and the potential loss of genuine connections. It is evident that technology and social media have transformed the way we communicate and interact with others, but the interviews also highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance and recognizing the value of face-to-face interactions in fostering meaningful relationships.

I have recently conducted a survey with my classmates to gather insights on how technology and social media have influenced communication and interaction among students in their daily lives. Although the number of responses is relatively small, the collected data allows us to gain a glimpse into individual experiences and perspectives on this matter.

One of the questions asked in the survey was how often students rely on digital communication methods, such as texting, messaging, or social media, in comparison to engaging in face-to-face conversations. The responses indicated a clear trend towards increased reliance on digital communication, with 85% of participants stating that they frequently use digital platforms as their primary means of communication. This suggests a significant shift away from traditional face-to-face interactions, highlighting the pervasive influence of technology in shaping our communication habits.

Furthermore, the survey explored changes in the quality of interactions and relationships due to the increased use of technology and social media. Interestingly, 63% of respondents reported that they had noticed a decrease in the depth and intimacy of their connections since incorporating more digital communication into their lives. Many participants expressed concerns about the difficulty of conveying emotions effectively through digital channels and the lack of non-verbal cues that are present in face-to-face interactions. It is important to note that while the survey results provide valuable insights into individual experiences, they are not representative of the entire student population. The small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. However, the data collected does shed light on the potential impact of technology and social media on communication and interaction patterns among students.

Expanding on the topic, I found an insightful figure from Business Insider that sheds light on how people utilize their smartphones (Business Insider). Figure 2. illustrates the average smartphone owner’s daily time spent on various activities. Notably, communication activities such as texting, talking, and social networking account for a significant portion, comprising 59% of phone usage. This data reinforces the impact of digital communication on our daily lives, indicating the substantial role it plays in shaping our interactions with others.  Upon comparing this research with the data, I have gathered, a clear trend emerges, highlighting that an increasing number of individuals primarily utilize their smartphones for communication and interaction purposes.

Figure 2: The breakdown of daily smartphone usage among average users clearly demonstrates that the phone is primarily used for interactions.

The Digital Make Over:

In today’s digital age, the impact of technology on communication and interaction is evident, particularly in educational settings. As a college student, I have witnessed the transformation firsthand, especially with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The convenience of online submissions for assignments has led to a growing trend of students opting to skip physical classes, relying on the ability to submit their work remotely. Unfortunately, this shift has resulted in a decline in face-to-face interactions and communication among classmates and instructors.

The decrease in physical attendance raises concerns about the potential consequences for both learning and social connections within the academic community. Classroom discussions, collaborative projects, and networking opportunities are often fostered through in-person interactions. By limiting these experiences, students may miss out on valuable learning moments, diverse perspectives, and the chance to establish meaningful connections with their peers and instructors.

Simon Lindgren, in his thought-provoking Ted Talk , “Media Are Not Social, but People Are,” delves deeper into the effects of technology and social media on our interactions. Lindgren highlights a significant point by suggesting that while technology may have the potential to make us better individuals, we must also recognize its potential pitfalls. Social media, for instance, can create filter bubbles that limit our exposure to diverse viewpoints, making us less in touch with reality and more narrow-minded. This cautionary reminder emphasizes the need to approach social media thoughtfully, seeking out diverse perspectives and avoiding the pitfalls of echo chambers. Furthermore, it is crucial to strike a balance between utilizing technology for educational purposes and embracing the benefits of in-person interactions. While technology undoubtedly facilitates certain aspects of education, such as online learning platforms and digital resources, we must not overlook the importance of face-to-face communication. In-person interactions allow for nuanced non-verbal cues, deeper emotional connections, and real-time engagement that contribute to a more comprehensive learning experience.

A study conducted by Times Higher Education delved into this topic, providing valuable insights. Figure 3. from the study illustrates a significant drop in attendance levels after the pandemic’s onset. Undeniably, technology played a crucial role in facilitating the transition to online learning. However, it is important to acknowledge that this shift has also led to a decline in face-to-face interactions, which have long been regarded as essential for effective communication and relationship-building. While technology continues to evolve and reshape the educational landscape, it is imperative that we remain mindful of its impact on communication and interaction. Striking a balance between digital tools and in-person engagement can help ensure that we leverage the benefits of technology while preserving the richness of face-to-face interactions. By doing so, we can foster a holistic educational experience that encompasses the best of both worlds and cultivates meaningful connections among students, instructors, and the academic community.

Figure 3:  This graph offers convincing proof that the COVID-19 pandemic and the extensive use of online submission techniques are to blame for the sharp reduction in in-person student attendance.

When asked about the impact of online submissions for assignments on physical attendance in classes, the survey revealed mixed responses. While 73% of participants admitted that the convenience of online submissions has led them to skip classes occasionally, 27% emphasized the importance of in-person attendance for better learning outcomes and social interactions. This finding suggests that while technology offers convenience, it also poses challenges in maintaining regular face-to-face interactions, potentially hindering educational and social development, and especially damaging the way we communicate and interact with one another. Students are doing this from a young age, and it comes into huge effect once they are trying to enter the work force and interact with others. When examining the survey data alongside the findings from Times Higher Education, striking similarities become apparent regarding how students approach attending classes in person with the overall conclusion being a massive decrease in students attending class which hinders the chance for real life interaction and communication. the convenience and instant gratification provided by technology can create a sense of detachment and impatience in interpersonal interactions. Online platforms allow for quick and immediate responses, and individuals can easily disconnect or switch between conversations. This can result in a lack of attentiveness and reduced focus on the person with whom one is communicating, leading to a superficial engagement that may hinder the establishment of genuine connections.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the digital revolution has profoundly transformed the way we communicate and interact with one another. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this transformation, leading to increased reliance on digital tools for socializing, working, and learning. While technology offers convenience and connectivity, it also introduces limitations and potential drawbacks. The shift towards digital communication raises concerns about the depth and quality of our connections, as well as the potential loss of face-to-face interactions. However, it is essential to strike a balance between digital and in-person engagement, recognizing the unique value of physical presence, non-verbal cues, and deeper emotional connections that face-to-face interactions provide. By navigating the digital landscape with mindfulness and intentionality, we can harness the transformative power of technology while preserving and nurturing the essential elements of human connection.

Moving forward, it is crucial to consider the impact of technology on our relationships, mental well-being, and society. As technology continues to evolve, we must be cautious of its potential pitfalls, such as the emphasis on self-presentation, the potential for increased stress and anxiety, and the risk of forgetting how to interact in person. Striking a balance between digital and face-to-face interactions can help ensure that technology enhances, rather than replaces, genuine human connections. By prioritizing meaningful engagement, valuing personal interactions, and leveraging the benefits of technology without compromising the depth and quality of our relationships, we can navigate the digital revolution in a way that enriches our lives and fosters authentic connections.

References:

Ballve, M. (2013, June 5). How much time do we really spend on our smartphones every day? Business Insider. Retrieved April 27, 2023. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-time-do-we-spend-on-smartphones-2013-6

Baym, N. (2015). Personal Connections in the Digital Age (2nd ed.). Polity.

Karunaratne, Indika & Atukorale, Ajantha & Perera, Hemamali. (2011). Surveillance of human-       computer interactions: A way forward to detection of users’ Psychological Distress. 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering, CHUSER 2011.             10.1109/CHUSER.2011.6163779.  https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Social-interaction-vs-electronic-media-use-Hours-per-day-of-face-to-face-social_fig1_254056654

Lindgren, S. (2015, May 20). Media are not social, but people are | Simon Lindgren | TEDxUmeå . YouTube. Retrieved April 27, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ5S7VIWE6k

Ross, J., McKie, A., Havergal, C., Lem, P., & Basken, P. (2022, October 24). Class attendance plummets post-Covid . Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved April 27, 2023, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/class-attendance-plummets-post-covid

Schultze, U. (2015, April 23). How social media shapes identity | Ulrike Schultze | TEDxSMU . YouTube. Retrieved April 27, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSpyZor-Byk

Subramanian, Dr. K .R. “Influence of Social Media in Interpersonal Communication – Researchgate.” ResearchGate.Net , www.researchgate.net/profile/Kalpathy-Subramanian/publication/319422885_Influence_of_Social_Media_in_Interpersonal_Communication/links/59a96d950f7e9b2790120fea/Influence-of-Social-Media-in-Interpersonal-Communication.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2023 .

And So It Was Written

Author: Anonymous

Published: June 9, 2023

Word Count: 3308

Reading time: ~ 12 minutes

Edit Link: (emailed to author) Request Now

ORGANIZED BY

Articles , Published

MORE TO READ

Add yours →.

• What Does Ois Stands For - Quant RL

Provide Feedback Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

A TRU Writer powered SPLOT : Visual Life

Blame @cogdog — Up ↑

Essay on Communication Technology

Students are often asked to write an essay on Communication Technology in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Communication Technology

What is communication technology.

Communication technology is how we send or get messages. Think of phones, computers, and the internet. These tools let us talk to people far away, share pictures, and work together, even if we’re in different places.

Changes Over Time

Long ago, people used letters, which were slow. Then came telephones, faster and easier. Now, smartphones and the internet let us chat instantly, anytime, making the world feel smaller and keeping us close to those we care about.

Benefits in Education

For students, communication technology means learning can happen anywhere. You can watch lessons online, join video calls with teachers, and get help from friends, all thanks to these amazing tools.

Staying Safe Online

While using these technologies, it’s important to stay safe. Keep personal information private, and be kind online. Remember, the internet is a public place, so always think before you share something.

250 Words Essay on Communication Technology

Communication technology is all about the tools and systems we use to share information with each other. Like when you send a message on your phone or video chat with a friend who lives far away. It can be simple, like writing a letter, or fancy, like sending emails through the internet.

The Parts of Communication Technology

There are a few key parts to this technology. First, we have devices like phones, computers, and tablets. Next, there’s the internet, which is like a big web connecting all these devices. Then, we have the software, which are the programs that let us do things like send emails or make video calls.

Why It’s Important

This technology is super important because it makes talking to people easy and quick. You can send a message to someone on the other side of the world in just seconds! It helps us learn new things, do business, and stay in touch with family and friends.

Challenges and Future

Even though it’s really useful, there are some challenges too. Sometimes, people worry about privacy and how safe their information is online. Also, not everyone has access to these tools, which can be unfair.

In the future, we expect communication technology to get even better. We might see new ways to talk to each other and share information that we haven’t even thought of yet. It’s an exciting area that keeps growing and changing all the time.

500 Words Essay on Communication Technology

The role of the internet.

The internet has changed how we communicate. It is like a big web connecting computers all over the world. With the internet, we can send messages, pictures, and videos to our friends and family no matter where they are. We can also find information about anything we are curious about by searching online.

Mobile Phones and Smartphones

Mobile phones have made it very easy to talk to others. We can carry them in our pockets and call or text someone anytime. Smartphones are even better because they can do so many things. We can use them to go on the internet, take photos, and use apps that help us learn and play.

Social Media and Email

Video calls and conferences.

Sometimes we want to see the person we are talking to. Video calls let us do that. We can see and hear each other on our screens. This is great for talking to family who live far away or for meetings when people cannot be in the same room.

The Importance of Communication Technology

Communication technology is important because it keeps us connected. It helps us make new friends and stay in touch with old ones. It is also useful for learning. Students can watch educational videos, talk to their teachers online, and find lots of information for their homework.

Challenges and Safety

Communication technology is a big part of our lives. It lets us talk to people, learn new things, and have fun. We should use it wisely and remember to stay safe online. As we grow up, new tools will come, and we will learn to use them to share and connect even more.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Sponsorship
• Write For Us

Technology – Changing Communication Around the World

Thomas Atkinson

• April 7, 2022
• Reading Time: 4 minutes

In comparison to previous generations, technology has drastically changed the way we communicate with each other around the world. In fact, the changes have been so significant that traditional types of communications like letters, telegraphs and even phone calls are becoming extinct. Through these advancements in technology, we now have more control over how we communicate than ever before, and have more options.

Table of Contents

More Communication Options

Technology has really opened up more ways for us to communicate with others. Whether it’s personal or professional communication , we now have many options to choose from. And, the great thing about all of these options is that we can choose what’s best for our needs without being tied down to just one method.

Video Communication

Perhaps, the most notable technological advancement that has changed the way we communicate with others is video chats, messages or conferences. It makes talking to friends and family more personal. For businesses, video conferences make it easier to see what’s going on, view charts and data, view presentations and more. The following are just a few examples of video communication :

• Skype – this is one of the most popular ways for personal and professional video communication. Talk to other Skype members for free, share information and more.
• FaceTime – the iPhone doesn’t even require an app like Skype to video chat. All you need is another iPhone user to communicate with via video.
• Apps and tools like Slack or Cisco WebEx are great examples of video conferencing at its finest. They can also be used to manage and increase workflow.

Faster Communication

It started with text messaging and has only improved from there. We can now send a text message within seconds and add images, emojis and other effects to friends and family members around the world. If you have compatible smartphones, like two iPhones, you can send iMessages which has plenty of options for personalizing your messages. Other examples of faster communication are:

• FB Messenger – Hundreds of millions of people around the world have Facebook. An easy way to communicate quickly with other FB users is through their FB Messenger app. Send messages, videos, images, emojis and more.
• Voxer – This app is like having your own walkie talkie. It requires that both parties are using this app. With just one tap, your message will be sent lightning fast. Additionally, you can send audio or video messages in a moment’s notice. It’s a great tool for businesses with mobile reps.

Cost-Effective Communication

In the past, we were locked into one of the few traditional phone companies and a slave to their rates. Especially, with regards to international phone calls. Let’s also not forget how traveling outside your country can also rack up roaming charges. Nowadays, we don’t even have to worry about any of these fees because we have communication options like the following:

• WhatsApp – With this app, you can send unlimited messages, enjoy group chats, send messages from your web browser, call friends and family members who also have this app, which includes free international calls.
• WeChat – This app is similar to WhatsApp as it also offers free messages, voice or video calls, group chats, desktop chat, and will even translate messages into your local language.

Social Media

Social Media has not only changed the way we communicate, but it has also revolutionized our daily lives in many ways like web browsing, connecting with others and getting the news. For example, we can get news quicker via Social Media than traditional outlets and we’re always informed on what’s trending throughout the world. Additionally, we can interact with our favorite celebrities and never miss any Hollywood gossip.

Social Media has also taught us how to communicate within a number of characters like Twitter or through video clips like Snap Chat. Additionally, we’ve been taught how to express ourselves and our businesses through images via Instagram. We can’t overlook how hashtags have also impacted the way we express ourselves and look up content, thanks to companies like Twitter and Instagram.

What Does the Future Hold?

One can only imagine how technology will continue to evolve the way we communicate. With video and lightning fast messaging, we are already connected to others in a moment’s notice no matter where they’re located in the world. It’s a safe bet that speed will continue to impact the advancements of communication tech. One area that we can hope will become available in the near future is holographic communications.

A: Technology is changing communication in various ways. It has facilitated instant and global communication through tools like email, messaging apps, and social media. It has also enabled real-time audio and video communication through platforms like Skype and Zoom. Additionally, technology has revolutionized collaboration and information sharing through cloud-based platforms and virtual workspaces.

A: Some examples of technology-driven communication tools include email, instant messaging apps (such as WhatsApp and Slack), video conferencing platforms (like Zoom and Microsoft Teams), social media platforms (such as Facebook and Twitter), and collaborative workspaces (like Google Drive and Microsoft SharePoint).

A: Technology has improved accessibility in communication by providing various assistive technologies and features. For example, screen readers and voice recognition software aid individuals with visual impairments or mobility limitations. Additionally, captioning and translation tools enable communication across language barriers, fostering inclusivity.

A: Technology has had a significant impact on business communication. It has made communication faster, more efficient, and more flexible. Businesses can now reach customers globally, collaborate with remote teams, conduct virtual meetings, and share information seamlessly. Technology has also expanded communication channels, allowing businesses to engage with customers through social media, email marketing, and online customer support.

A: While technology-driven communication offers numerous benefits, it also presents challenges. These may include issues of privacy and data security, the potential for miscommunication or misinterpretation in digital communication, and over-reliance on technology that may lead to reduced face-to-face interaction or social isolation. It’s important to strike a balance and use technology as a tool to enhance, rather than replace, human connection and communication.

• More on Technology

IT Chronicles

• Write for Us
• Privacy Policy
• Sponsorship Opportunities
• Digital PR as a Service

Explore our topics

Top categories.

IELTS Blog & IELTS Mock Test

Ielts exam preparation for a higher band score., ielts essay – impact of technology on communication.

IELTS Essay:

Topic: Impact of technology on communication. (Advantages & Disadvantages).

Sample Answer: It is a true fact to consider that in the present day the world has become a global village. As a result technology has main impact to the contemporary world. Considering this, some analysts consider the positive impacts of technology on our communication while others shows the negative aspects of it. However, there are some pros and cons behind implementation of said proposal.

There are some significant advantages of the influences of technology on communication and time saving could be a significant fact to be considered. It is generally seen that few decades ago people used to send letters to exchange a few words and ideas with others and waited a long time to get reply from them. However, as the development of technology people use modern equipment for communication to each other. For example, telephone, mobile phones, internet and e-mails etc.  Moreover, building relationship easily and across the boundary with each other may be another merit of the technological advancement. Therefore, people are not getting alone anymore because closed families and friends get chance to find out their loved ones.

Despite, the advantages pointed out above regarding immense benefit of communication, there are some disadvantages that cannot be neglected without any careful consideration. Unstable cyber relationships could be a detrimental fact. It may be defined as that nowadays social media has brought people together and made new relationships possible. As result some relationships led to many crimes For instance, internet frauds, lying deceiving have become very common nowadays.

In the end, undoubtedly, whether communication is good or bad to the society is a matter of discussion; however, as far as I am concern communication has enormous benefits to the contemporary world and it outweighs certain drawbacks. The way we live our life could not have been possible without the blessing of the modern technology and communications.

[ Written by – Thilini Shani ]

4 thoughts on “ IELTS Essay – Impact of technology on communication ”

Hi, thanks.

I also think it to be a great post. The advice is truly beneficial for IELTS students. I would also like to say that I appreciate a lot the author’s suggestions on communication.

Great post. All nursing students and employed nurses could benefit from this wise advice. I particularly appreciate your suggestions on communication.

• Pingback: The Impact of Technology on Communication

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA × four = 8

Speaking of Psychology: Technology is changing how we talk to each other, with Jeff Hancock, PhD

Episode 142 — technology is changing how we talk to each other.

Zoom, Facebook, group text messages: This past year, technology has sometimes felt like the glue that’s kept many of our relationships alive. More and more, we talk to each other with technology in between us. Jeff Hancock, PhD, director of the Social Media Lab at Stanford University, discusses how this is affecting human communication, including whether people are more likely to lie online, whether the versions of ourselves that we present on social media are authentic, how artificial intelligence infiltrates our text messages, why video calls exhaust us more than in-person conversations, and more.

About the expert: Jeff Hancock, PhD

Streaming Audio

Kim Mills: This past year, technology has been the glue that's kept many of our relationships alive. Birthday parties and business meetings moved to Zoom and we kept up with friends and acquaintances who we could no longer see in person with Facebook updates, FaceTime and group text messages. Now, even as life begins to return to normal, technology-mediated communication is here to stay. Although offices are starting to reopen, many workplaces plan to allow teleworking to continue, which will mean those dreaded Zoom meetings are not going away.

But even before the pandemic, we were already relying heavily on social media to keep us connected. Facebook alone has 2.8 billion monthly active users and 85% of Americans now own a smartphone. More and more, when we talk to each other, we do it with some kind of technology between us. So what does this mean for human communication? Is the version of ourselves that we present on social media authentic and truthful? Are people more likely to lie online or in a text message than they are in person? Do video calls exhaust us more than in-person conversations do? And perhaps more broadly, is all of this technology-driven communication good for our mental health and wellbeing or not?

Welcome to Speaking of Psychology, the flagship podcast of the American Psychological Association that examines the links between psychological science and everyday life. I'm Kim Mills.

Our guest today is Dr. Jeff Hancock, a psychologist and professor in the department of communication at Stanford University, where he founded and directs the Stanford Social Media Lab. Dr. Hancock is an expert in social media behavior and the psychology of online interaction. He is well-known for his research on how people lie and whether we can detect deception in texts, emails or in online reviews. His TED talk on deception has been viewed more than 1 million times. He's also studied how social media affects well-being and how artificial intelligence is changing the way we talk to one another. 

Thank you for joining us, Dr. Hancock.

Jeff Hancock, PhD: Thanks Kim. I'm excited to be here.

Mills: So as I said, the name of your research group is the Stanford Social Media Lab. For a lot of people, when they think of social media, they think about Twitter, or LinkedIn, or Facebook or Instagram. You study those, but you also have a broader definition of what social media is. Can you explain that?

Hancock: Right, yeah. And in fact, I had a social media lab at Cornell before there was social media, so to speak, because for me, social media is any technology that we use to be social with one another. So I'm really interested in human-to-human communication, when there's some technology between us. But even more broadly, if you're talking to a robot, in a way I think of that as social media. When you're interacting with your car, that's a form of social media, and you and I here on a video conference to me is social media as well.

Mills: So let's talk about something that falls under that broader umbrella, which is video chat. Your research into Zoom fatigue has gotten quite a bit of recent media coverage. What exactly is Zoom fatigue? And why should we find it so exhausting to just sit in front of a computer screen and talk to other people?

Hancock: Well, that's exactly the question that my colleague, Jeremy Bailenson and I had, when the pandemic first started and us faculty members had all this extra time because we didn't have to commute. We weren't going into the lab, meetings were getting canceled left and right. But everything went to Zoom, and we found ourselves having these conversations about why would this be so tiring? We're here relaxed, we're in our homes. And so what we started to look at were the differences between Zoom conferences and face-to-face. And looking back, there was a lot of work in the '90s. My colleague here at Stanford, Pam Hinds, had done work on video conferencing and why they might be more fatiguing, but it's sort of, the research died out to some degree because it wasn't a huge deal. People weren't using video conference all the time. It was there if you wanted it, but most people didn't use it.

So what we started to talk about was this general feeling of kind of exhaustion or tiredness. Sometimes afterwards, Jeremy would say, “I just don't feel like doing anything afterwards.” Or I would say, “I don't want to talk to anybody after that.” So we found some sort of consensus on this idea that maybe Zoom meetings aren't necessarily more fatiguing than face-to-face, but have a kind of some unique fatigue. We think it's related to some of the non-verbal dynamics. So Jeremy laid this out in one of his articles really nicely. The fact that your face right now is really close to mine. So almost like at an intimate level and that's sort of physiologically arousing. Either we're going to be, come to blows or we're going to have a kiss, right? Like it's very unusual for us to be this close. When we're on with lots of people, even if I'm not speaking, it feels like a lot of people are staring at us. Something that we've called “hyper gaze.”

And to me then, one of the biggest ones psychologically is the mirror. So right now I'm speaking to you, I can see myself, in fact, my image is as big as yours. And while we've all seen ourselves in the mirror before, we've never really seen ourselves socially behaving. When we go into the bathroom and check ourselves out, it's usually just for appearance, but not for how we behave. This has a huge impact on us, I think and is very tiring. I've been trying to track myself just how much time I look at my image versus yours. And so it's hard to do this kind of introspection, but I'm guessing it's about half the time. My attention is drawn back to my image. So these are some of the examples of why Zoom could be so fatiguing.

Mills: Let's turn for a moment to your research on deception and lying. Your TED Talk that I mentioned a moment ago is called, The Future of Lying . What is the future of lying? How will it be different from its past?

Hancock: That is a really great question. For me, I was interested in how technology could change how often we lie, and then how we sort of end up trusting other people, kind of two sides of the same coin in a way. When we first started looking at it, we would ask people, where do they think people would lie the most? And what we found was this sort of folk theory that as soon as you couldn't see the other person, as soon as you couldn't hear the other person, lying would go up. And it’s sort of this non-verbal cue idea that if I can't see them, then they can lie more easily and therefore they will. And that’s wrong, it turns, out on a whole bunch of levels. And I think the most recent work that I think is the best on deception detection in general, is Tim Levine's, and it's summarized in his book, Duped .

And what we find when it comes to technology is his ideas from Duped work perfectly. So the first is that most of the time, most people don't want to lie, right? The best option usually is to tell the truth. And sometimes we're in positions where that's uncomfortable or awkward or could be harmful for us. And that doesn't really change when we go into technology. And I should also clarify that I'm not talking about the Russian spies or the scam artists, the prince from Nigeria or any of those folks. Instead, I'm talking about people that we know, people that we have a tie with.

And in that case, it looks like the psychology really drives lying, not the technology. So we found that people will be just as likely to lie in technologically mediated places as others, except there was one big difference. And that is, when the technology left a record. So in some of our earliest work, we found that people would lie the least in emails. And emails are one of these really recorded ones. So if I send you an email, not only do you have a copy of the lie I just sent you, but there's also ones on servers and everything.

So most of the time psychology is what's going to drive whether someone lies or not, not the technology, but there are some features. So if there's a record, people tend to think about that a little bit. Another one is whether we're synchronous or not. So when I'm face-to-face with you, there's only so much I can pause. Like if I pause more than a second, it gets kind of weird and you start to worry that maybe I'm having a stroke or something. And so we have to think of things really fast. And so lying occurs more often synchronously. Technology can give us a bit of a break on that. And sometimes we even see that people are more honest in those places.

So I think the future of lying is one that will be driven primarily by psychology. So do we have the need to lie? Are there other options? Also by some of these affordances of technology like, will there be a record of this or not? And so that will continue to evolve. Now in our latest work, what we're seeing is that people are getting really good at lying even in recorded media. And they're there, you just choose the kind of lies you can do. So for example, a student could say to me, “You know, Professor Hancock, my printer's not working.” And that's an okay lie in an email because the chance of me going to his place and checking out his printer is almost zero. But if he were to lie and say something about when he submitted something and then there's a record, I can check that. Then he's going to be in trouble.

Mills: Have you done comparisons among various media? Are we more likely to lie via text or in person or over the phone? I mean, how do we lie differently in different situations?

Hancock: Right. Great question. So we've done a number of these different kinds of studies. We use diary studies where we get people to record them. We've looked at log records, lots of different ways. And what we end up finding is that text and email typically have fewer lies than say phone calls. And it's because of that record. It's because we're not forced to say things really quickly. And it's sort of been hard to talk about it lately, because with disinformation, everybody just thinks that once you're on the internet, everything is a lie. And it is true that there is a lot of deception online, but I try to differentiate between what I call the known network, so people that we have a tie with and the unknown network, so that could be anybody from the Russian spy to just somebody trying to troll me, to someone trying to scam me.

And it's difficult sometimes to differentiate those. So is there a lot of disinformation online? Yes. It's a real major problem. But does that happen in between, say Jeff and Kim who have a professional relationship? No, very unlikely. In those kind of situations we see lying is more likely to be done on the phone, so vocally or face-to-face, than it will be in an email or text message.

Mills: What's been most surprising to you while studying the impact of technology online?

Hancock: Well, it was definitely the fact that people were lying the least in email, for example, one of our first studies. I remember, it was really strange. And then when we started thinking about it and thinking about this idea of the record, once you think of that, it's so obvious. But I think a lot of deception detection researchers up until the 2000s were really focused on non-verbal cues. This is the influence of Paul Ekman and his colleagues and students that we really focused on non-verbal things, and it made it into the pop culture. Now it's pretty clear that there aren't any really strong Pinocchio noses. There's no one cue that will always tell you if somebody's lying. So the fact that it happens online versus face-to-face, the non-verbals are just less important. And instead it’s some of these affordances of online, like the record that we leave behind.

Mills: There's this idea that we're all envious of each other these days. Not because people necessarily lie on social media, but because they present the best, most idealized vision of themselves, with touched-up selfies, or elegant dinners, or beautiful vacation photos rather than the day-to-day drudgery. Is the way that people present themselves on social media authentic or is that not authentic? Is that a big lie?

Hancock: This is one of the biggest complaints people have about social media, that it's all just like people showing their greatest stuff. And I guess I have two big responses to that. One is that, when we talk to people that we've just gotten to know, or we see on the street, or we see back in the hallway, we would not talk about all the crappy things or boring things that happened to us. We would say, “Hey, I just went skiing this weekend or I did that.” That is, we're always presenting a version of ourselves. And I don't think that's inauthentic. Instead, I think people are saying, “Here's what I want to project. Here's what I value. Here's me with my friends, or here's me traveling.” And so, okay. Is it a better part of themselves? Is it them looking the best out of the 50 photos they took? Yeah. But this is also like a sweater that I'm wearing that I think I look good in. I'm not here in my underwear.

Mills: I can attest to that.

Hancock: So is this authentic?

Mills: This is an audio podcast, but he's telling the truth.

Hancock: I am clothed. And sure, it's in the Zoom era, maybe we're coming more often in pajamas, but we still think about our presentation. So I think that we're able to do more kinds of optimized presentation online, but I don't think it's necessarily inauthentic. And my colleague, Sandra Matz, has done some really nice recent work showing that some people can present really authentically online. And it turns out online behavior and being engaged a lot, can be really healthy for them. High wellbeing. Other people report behaving online in a sort of inauthentic way, where they're saying, “Well, I did post that, but that's not really who I am or that's not, I only did that once.” And that can make them actually feel bad afterwards. So I also think we can move away from social media being all one thing or the other for everyone, and start to understand that if I behave in an inauthentic way that can have some negative ramifications for me, but if I'm behaving authentically online, it can be really powerful.

Mills: There's been a lot of worry in articles about whether smartphones and social media are addictive and whether they cause depression or anxiety, especially when we're talking about kids and teens. Are these worries justified?

Hancock: Let me start by saying, these are really prevalent worries. Any parent group I talk to, any professional group like educators, friends and family with kids, this is a serious concern. Because I think everyone sees kids, especially with the pandemic, on a lot of screen time. And even before the pandemic, my colleague Nicole Ellison and I were working on a book proposal about why we wanted to bring down the anxiety. One reason is there's not a lot of great evidence that using social media is automatically good or bad for you. Instead, our survey of the literature is that it depends much more on what you're doing.

So if you spend an hour connecting with an old friend or interacting with buddies on a video game or whatever you're doing on your phone, that can be really psychologically healthy. If you're doing something that's not, like stalking an ex or obsessing on something and using social media to do that, then that could be psychologically unhealthy.

So in our review of the literature—this is my colleagues at the Stanford Social Media Lab—we looked at over 200 studies, over 200,000 participants in all of these studies. And we can basically meta-analyze it so that you say how much social media use a person was having in the study and then whatever measure of wellbeing. And there's many types. We tracked six, things from like depression and loneliness, but also social connectedness and life satisfaction. When we did that huge, giant study, the effect size was R=0.01, which is essentially zero. It's a very precise estimate of zero.

So does that mean for all the parents out there like, “Hey, don't worry about it. You know, Professor Hancock says it's not a problem.” I don't think that's exactly what I would be saying, but I would say there isn't evidence for you to be really anxious and worried. Instead, what I would think about is, for your child and your family, how is this person's use of technology working, right? And so I have some friends, their kids are doing really well, they're thriving in the pandemic. They're learning all these computer skills and their friends are working with them to do better at homework and to stay connected. Others have really struggled. And I think this is another place we're getting where we need to move away from averages and start looking at individuals.

And there's really great work coming out of Europe, and this sort of, it's called the [inaudible] Wellbeing Project, where they're taking an n-of-1 approach. Where they're finding that some young people—indeed it is about 10%—find that using social media can make them more anxious for example. And there's another group, about the same size, that using social media can be really valuable for them, right? From a point like creativity, [inaudible] connectedness. And there was a whole bunch of people in the middle that it has no effect at all. There's zero correlation.

And so I think this is another thing where we need to start thinking about the individuals, what they're doing and how it's working psychologically in their life. And I think for parents, that's an important way to start thinking about it, instead of just how much time or how frequently they're using it, which is a kind of addiction model. Instead, think about, how functional is it? Is it working? What are they doing? What skills are they getting? Are they staying connected? And I think that's a more healthy approach to tech use.

Mills: So it sounds like you're looking at what people are doing when they're online. Are you looking at attention span? It seems that one of the things that's happening to us is that we're all over the place because we're distracted. You look at one thing, you've got an article, it's got five links in it. Pretty soon you've gone down some rabbit hole and you don't know how you got there.

Hancock: Right, Kim, I fully get that. I sense my attention changing as well, and that is a concern, but I kind of try to think of the longer arc of say psychological history. And a good story to anchor us is Socrates. And he was really adamant about a technology at that time, because he was worried about its effect on human memory, which to him was very much about the human soul. And that was the alphabet. He really believed that by writing things down, we would no longer remember them in the same way. And back there you'd have poets that would be trained to remember multi-hundred line poems, we don't get our kids to do that anymore. But I don't think anybody would say, “Well, let's get rid of the alphabet because we can't do 900-line poems.”

So yes, I would strongly believe that the way we are using technology, our immediate environment is changing, our brain is changing, our neuropsychology. And one negative outcome, I think, for me especially, is I feel like I'm pretty easily distracted, like doing 20 minutes of writing on one of my papers, I put a timer down now. So I just stay focused on that for 20 minutes and then I want to change it up. But perhaps that's allowing me to deal with a whole bunch of other kinds of information in our new kind of media environment. Perhaps there's some costs, but we're adapting and we have benefits there.

Mills: Are there other ways that we can incorporate social media into our lives that will maximize the benefits and minimize the harms?

Hancock: Well, I love the way you put that. I think that is the exact way to be thinking about it. And I don't have really high level advice other than, for each person, each family, to think about the degree to which this is beneficial for me and costly. There's been a number of studies that show that people that are really showing kind of problematic internet use, say overusing Facebook. They're often dealing with some other life stress, like they've lost a family member, they've lost a job, they're going through a divorce, whether it's some kind of financial issues. And so rather than thinking, what is social media doing to that person? It'd be more like, why is that person using it in that way? What are they trying to deal with? And for many people, it can be quite functional. It can be, I'm trying to deal with this, I'm trying to get through it. There are a small number of people, a small part of the population for which it's problematic. And it could be social media, it could be video games where they've just, doing it so much that it's interfering with other parts of their lives.

And so I like that approach that you just mentioned, which is how do you optimize? How do you maximize the benefits and reduce the costs? I kind of think of it like driving cars. Cars are far more deadly than social media, way more. And in the past were even more so, but we created new tech, there's airbags. We created regulations, you have to wear seat belts. We created new norms. You can't smoke in a car with your kids, but when I was growing up, that's what every parent did. It was not a problem. Now, if somebody tried to do that, that would be, not be okay.

So our tech changes, our policy and regulation changes and our social behaviors change. And it makes cars much safer. Are they perfect? No, but we're optimizing, we're creating the most benefit from the cars we can and minimizing the cost. And there's still work to be done. Most cars produce carbon, and that's not good for our well-being in the long term either, and we're working on that. So I think it's an ongoing thing, that people will need to just focus on the way they're using their tech to think about how is this beneficial for them.

Mills: So one of your more recent research interests is how artificial intelligence has begun to affect the conversations that people have with each other. This is really a really interesting idea that I suspect a lot of people haven't really thought about. How is artificial intelligence injecting itself into our conversations and what effect does it have?

Hancock: Right. I think it's fascinating too, Kim. So I'm glad you do as well. Most people think about, when we talk with an Amazon machine or Apple's Siri, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the way that we use AI to talk to each other, so AI sitting between humans. So when you and I were trying to figure out when we were going to have this conversation, my email would suggest, say three things. If you had said, “How about Monday noon?” It might say, “Sounds good, talk to you then,” or “No, I can't.” Very simple. When I look at them, they seem like, yeah, one of those would fit the bill.

It looks like there's about 16 billion of those messages sent every day, just through Google's platform. Now we see places like Microsoft that have introduced autocomplete sentences in Word. We're seeing it in text messaging, autocorrect, autopredict. And so what's happening is, when I go to talk to you in and of these environments, I'm given suggestions on what to say. And those suggestions often feel really right. But what we know from the way human language is produced is that, when I see language or hear language, it primes my semantic network space. So it actually activates some concepts. So that's how we can speak so quickly back and forth, is we kind of become aligned linguistically with what language we're reading or hearing.

So when I'm shown, “Sounds good” or “No problem,” it might feel right. It might feel like what I would've said, but I can't know because my brain has been primed to think those are reasonable things to say. And what's even crazier is, let's say you're using some system that never uses AI, never allows AI to be part of it. You don't have the options, but I use, “Sounds good. Talk to you then,” and send that over to you. Well, now you've been primed by AI, even though you have no knowledge of it, there's no representation of that, but your brain has been changed.

Okay. So does it matter? Well, it's at scale, so we're getting 16 billion and that's certainly a low estimate because that's just Google. What we've found is some work done at Cornell, by Malte Jung and Jess Hohenstein, and also we've replicated here at Stanford with Hannah Mieczkowski, finding that these AI systems tend to be overly positive. What I mean there is that, sounds good, sounds great, those are much more common in the AI-suggested messages than what humans would use. And we've done these in experiments, we've looked at the actual Google messages themselves.

And it makes sense. If you're a corporation you want to screw up that asymmetry effectively one way. You want to overdo the positive, right? And not more often say, “No, you're an idiot.” So that's smart on the creator's side. But when you have more positivity being injected into language at the scale of Google, it raises real questions about, what does that mean to our emotional tone? Is it appropriate? Is it going to change the way we're thinking? And then there are other big questions like, what kind of discourse are those systems being trained on? If it's around trust, for example, then we know that older, white, male discourse, right? The old Walter Cronkite type style of discourse is the most trusted in our society.

If the AI is being trained on that kind of language, then it's going to prioritize white, male discourse. And so there's real big ethical questions here as well when we're using AI to inject into human-to-human communication. And I think it's a fascinating area. It has a lot of potential for good, but I'm frankly a little alarmed at how invisible it is and how at scale it is.

Mills: Ha. It's like putting Prozac in the water, right?

Hancock: Right. Oh, that's good. It'll be the title of our next paper.

Mills: So obviously, as we've been chatting here, it's clear that technology changes really quickly. Is there anything that people aren't thinking about much now that you think will be the next big question?

Hancock: I think the two things I've been thinking a lot about for the future is exactly what we were just talking about. This idea of AI-mediated communication. AI being used to help humans talk to other humans. There's new tech out that technologists know a lot about, but I think most folks don't, which is called GPT-3. This is a natural language generation system. And it is truly impressive on the kinds of language it can write. So you train it up on whatever content area you're interested in and then it produces new content. I think it raises questions for disinformation. Now you have to pay people a little bit to get a bunch of disinformation out there. With something like GPT-3, you're looking at essentially infinite amount of disinformation for really low cost. So there's these kinds of things.

Also, if you're a young student and you're interested in marketing, for example, GPT-3 will be used to create massive amounts of marketing for a much lower price. And so if you're into brand management graduating right now, and you don't know about how AI can create language, you're going to be in trouble, I think. So those are things that are right at the cusp. And there's lots of things to be worried about, lots of things to be excited about.

The other brings us back to the Zoom fatigue that we were talking about earlier. It's pretty clear that most large companies that we've been talking to are interested in a hybrid model going forward. And there's lots of reasons for it, from cost to reducing carbon, all of these things. But companies are worried about culture, their kind of corporate culture. They're worried about bringing young people in and having them get known within an organization. So I think video is here to stay.

And one question is, how do we move from just this video where you're seeing into my living room, I'm seeing into your office, there's no real organization. If you were to come into my office at Stanford, you would see bookshelf and there'd be a desk. And we would kind of know how things are going there. We've just sort of opened our homes into business. And so I think there's a lot of things to be done here around VR. So how will virtual reality help us incorporate culture at a distance? We'll see changes in the way that Zoom conferences or video conferences are done. So I think we'll see big improvements in technology. And also kind of institutional changes. Let's not have Zoom or video conferences as a default all the time, let's use it when it's important or necessary.

And I think those are going to be more of a sense of, what's the right word? More of a sense of investment in people and their places, if we're going to ask people to stay home. And so we'll start seeing corporations, I think, invest in people's home offices and do it in a ways that will help support that culture, that they're very interested in keeping. So yeah, I'm excited for the future. I think we've opened up a new kind of way of working together and connecting that could be healthier for the planet, healthier for us individually, but it just doesn't have to be video conference all time.

Mills: I'm trying to figure out how we're going to come up with some sort of a hybrid model that works, so that when some people are in the office and some people are not, like what's happening with kids in school right now, right? Where the teacher is so busy dealing with the Zoom kids that she's not dealing with the kids who were in the room.

Hancock: Right.

Mills: And are we going to experience something like that when we go back to work?

Hancock: Those hybrid situations, whether it's some people in person and some people not are the most difficult for sure, because the ones that aren't there are a little less visible. And I think that's where we might see some good advances in technology. There's likely to be changes where I can put some glasses on and see another person who's not here right now, but the glasses make sort of visible or at least selling it, not perfectly, but at least will remind me that they're here, they're part of this conversation.

Mills: Well, this has all been really interesting. I appreciate you taking the time to talk to us, Dr. Hancock. It's been a pleasure to talk to you.

Hancock: Thanks, Kim. Really enjoyed the conversation.

Mills: You can find previous episodes of Speaking of Psychology at www.speakingofpsychology.org or on Apple, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. And please leave us a review. If you have comments or ideas for future podcasts, you can email us at [email protected]. That's speakingofpsychology, all one word, @apa.org. Speaking of Psychology is produced by Lea Winerman. Our sound editor is Chris Condayan. 

Thank you for listening. For the American Psychological Association, I'm Kim Mills.

Download Episode

Episode 142: Technology is changing how we talk to each other, with Jeff Hancock, PhD

Save the MP3 file linked above to listen to it on your computer or mobile device.

• Learn more about Hancock’s research at the Stanford Social Media Lab .
• Nonverbal Overload: A Theoretical Argument for the Causes of Zoom Fatigue ( Technology, Mind & Behavior , 2021)
• Nonverbal Mechanisms Predict Zoom Fatigue and Explain Why Women Experience Higher Levels than Men (Social Science Research Network, 2021)
• When AI writes your email (Stanford News, 2020)
• TED Talk: The future of lying (2013)

Speaking of Psychology

Speaking of Psychology is an audio podcast series highlighting some of the latest, most important, and relevant psychological research being conducted today.

Produced by the American Psychological Association, these podcasts will help listeners apply the science of psychology to their everyday lives.

Subscribe and download via:

Your host: Kim I. Mills

Kim I. Mills is senior director of strategic external communications and public affairs for the American Psychological Association, where she has worked since 2007. Mills led APA’s foray into social media and envisioned and launched APA’s award-winning podcast series Speaking of Psychology  in 2013. A former reporter and editor for The Associated Press, Mills has also written for publications including The Washington Post , Fast Company , American Journalism Review , Dallas Morning News , MSNBC.com and Harvard Business Review .

In her 30+-year career in communications, Mills has extensive media experience, including being interviewed by The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Wall Street Journal , and other top-tier print media. She has appeared on CNN, Good Morning America , Hannity and Colmes , CSPAN, and the BBC, to name a few of her broadcast engagements. Mills holds a bachelor’s degree in biology from Barnard College and a master’s in journalism from New York University.

Contact APA Office of Public Affairs

Technophrenia

On the interface between technology, people and society

How technology is changing language and the way we think about the world

Director of UWA Centre for Software Practice, The University of Western Australia

University of Western Australia provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

We are getting used to the idea of rapidly developing technologies changing what we can do and how we do things. What most people haven’t considered is how technologies affect our language and how these changes are affecting the way we speak and even the way we think.

One of the key ways we see this is when the name of a company becomes a way of doing something involving any product that is similar. Classic examples are “to hoover” which came from the early dominance of vaccuum cleaners from the Hoover Company .

Googling becomes a verb

More significantly is the use of the term “to google” which first came to prominence in 2002 when the American Dialect Society declared it word of the year. Later, in 2009, they declared “google” to be the the word of the decade.

Google had become a generic word meaning “to search the Internet” with any search engine, not just Google itself. But googling has become much more than just the mere act of typing words into a text box and clicking a button. We now understand the subtext when someone declares “I have googled you” or even that they have googled themselves. The idea that this act can now exert a powerful effect on the opinion we form of others has even resulted in laws formulated by the European Union giving individuals rights over search engine companies to have information about them removed in order to be “forgotten”.

Google has now become our collective global memory and googling is the process by which we access those memories. This, in turn, is simply a process that we have always engaged with called “ transactive memory ” in which we turn to people around us, usually people we know, to help us recall facts and memories. The invention of the Gutenberg press allowed us to outsource people to books. The difference now though is that Google is now always with us, has a vast database of information that it is getting increasingly better at letting you access, with the vaguest of questions. This in turn has had a dramatic effect on what we are able to achieve, not only as individuals, but as a society.

The act of computer programming for example has become much easier through the ability to learn new computer languages and solve problems by “googling” the answers. It could be argued that the boom in mobile phone apps would not have been possible without Ggoogle providing a mechanism to access the “transactive memories” of the thousands of knowledgeable programmers with the answers to any developer’s questions.

Interestingly, it has been [Google] themselves who have resisted , even at times through legal threats, the spread of “google” being used beyond its reference to the company. This is because if it does enter the language as a common term, Google could lose the protection of the name as a trademark. If Google becomes a common term, to mean any generic search, it could become a “generic trademark” like Cellophane, Aspirin, Escalator and others.

Industries become uberized

In a different example of a verb that has come from a proper noun but may have just as significant an impact on our social lives, we have “to uberize”. This comes from the company Uber whose business approach has disrupted an industry by using mobile apps backed with data analytics to provide cheaper taxi services to consumers. The concept of “uberization” has taken the general meaning of disrupting any industry through the use of technology to circumvent unnecessary bureaucracy and legislation. What is interesting about the use of the term uberization is that again, the subtext is not just about the actual process of transforming an industry into something more efficient or productive. Saying that an industry needs to be “uberized” is as much a commentary about its unwillingness to change, modernise and really meet consumers’ needs. This context is being built up with every new development in the ongoing battles and controversies that Uber is facing as it pushes through its disruption of the taxi industry.

Uber’s less successful contribution to our language has been the concept of “ surge pricing ”. The concept embodies basic economic principles to ensure that there are taxis willing to pick up consumers at the busiest times. It turns out that this is too hard for most consumers (and reporters) to understand and they have interpreted it simply as unfair price gouging.

As a new term, it is an interesting example however of how a term that was supposed to have a specific meaning has been turned into something completely different through popular usage.

How much has changed

There are many conversations that we could have today that would mean little to someone from 2005. Even though the definition of specific words could be given, it would need the entire context of how they have developed through the interplay of technology, individuals and society to have any real meaning. This is not the first time this has happened in history but certainly the increase in the pace of change has resulted in our language changing equally rapidly, and with it, our thoughts.

On a final historical note, you can wonder what George Bernard Shaw would have understood by the following statements? “My mother was hacked last night.” “What a great meal - I’ll upload it!” “If anyone’s out there, can you inbox me?’ "How many steps did you get today?” “Will you torrent me the next series?” “I’ve given up on windows.”

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

Research Security Advisor (Defence)

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Educational Designer

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Is Technology Enhancing or Hindering Interpersonal Communication? A Framework and Preliminary Results to Examine the Relationship Between Technology Use and Nonverbal Decoding Skill

Mollie a. ruben.

1 Department of Psychology, University of Maine, Orono, ME, United States

2 Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, United States

Morgan D. Stosic

Jessica correale, danielle blanch-hartigan.

3 Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, Bentley University, Waltham, MA, United States

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Digital technology has facilitated additional means for human communication, allowing social connections across communities, cultures, and continents. However, little is known about the effect these communication technologies have on the ability to accurately recognize and utilize nonverbal behavior cues. We present two competing theories, which suggest (1) the potential for technology use to enhance nonverbal decoding skill or, (2) the potential for technology use to hinder nonverbal decoding skill. We present preliminary results from two studies to test these hypotheses. Study 1 ( N = 410) found that global screen time was unrelated to nonverbal decoding skill. However, how participants spent their time using technology mattered. Participants who reported more active technology use (i.e., posting content) self-reported that their nonverbal decoding skill (as measured by the Emotional Sensitivity subscale of the Social Skills Inventory) was superior but performed worse on objective measures of decoding skill (using standardized tests including the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-Adult Faces and the Workplace Interpersonal Perception Skill). By contrast, passive users performed significantly better on objective measures of nonverbal decoding skill; although they did not self-report any difference in their skill compared to less passive users. Study 2 ( N = 190), and a mini-meta analysis of both studies, replicated this pattern. These effects suggest a roadmap for understanding the theoretical relationship between technology use and nonverbal communication skills. We also provide recommendations for future research, including the use of experimental designs to determine causal pathways and to advance our conceptual understanding of the relationship between technology use and nonverbal decoding skill.

Introduction

A young-professional is woken up to the sound of a buzzing alarm, and grudgingly rolls over to grab their phone. Perhaps this individual begins their morning by passively scrolling through their Facebook feed in order to determine their colleague’s reaction to the heated presidential debate the night before. Or maybe they snap a quick picture of their #OOTD (i.e., Outfit of the Day) to send to their close friend. After returning home from a long day of work-based videoconference calls, this individual may spend the next few hours sucked into the whereabouts of their favorite social media influencer, or casually swiping through some dating profiles. Before retiring to bed, however, they make sure to post a quick inspiring quote to their Twitter profile.

This scenario, while fictitious, illustrates the increasing relationship many individuals have with technology from the instant they wake up, to the instant they go to bed. Technology serves various functions, from increasing office productivity, facilitating big data collection, enhancing record keeping, and above all else, providing a distinctly digital way for humans to communicate with one another. Indeed, the rate of communicative instances via technology per day in 2020 is astounding: 350 million photos uploaded to Facebook, 500 million tweets, 3 billion snapchats, and over 26 billion texts by Americans alone ( Aslam, 2020a , b ; Sayce, 2020 ; Tocci, 2020 ).

While the digital revolution has certainly changed the way individuals can communicate, little empirical results exists regarding the effect of technology on an individual’s communication skills. Specifically, because technology markedly changes the available information individual’s use to decode the communicative intents of others (e.g., determining a friend’s emotional state via short text message instead of their facial expression), are those who spend large quantities of time communicating online better or worse decoders of nonverbal information? Not only is nonverbal decoding a crucial component of general social and communication skills, but it has been tied to better interpersonal outcomes (e.g., Hall et al., 2009 ), can be easily assessed with validated, reliable, and standardized objective measures, and can be improved with practice and feedback trainings (e.g., Schlegel et al., 2017b ). Therefore, the question of whether technology may affect nonverbal decoding, or how accurately a perceiver can recognize and interpret the nonverbal behaviors of another person, is important to empirically address.

Supplementing or even fully replacing face-to-face communication with technology-mediated communication affects both the number of nonverbal cues, as well as the types of nonverbal cues that individuals use to decode communicative meaning ( Vinciarelli, 2017 ). For example, text messages may not allow access to important vocal cues (e.g., pitch, tone, inflections), but may have distinct timing and spacing cues to draw from Döring and Pöschl (2008) . By contrast, video conferencing technologies may allow access to vocal cues, but may limit the ability to engage in mutual eye gaze or perceive body movements and gestures ( Ferrán-Urdaneta and Storck, 1997 ; Neureiter et al., 2013 ). If individuals rely more heavily on technology-mediated, as opposed to face-to-face, interactions as a primary means of communication, it seems likely that the nonverbal decoding skill individuals ordinarily employ in face-to-face communication would be impacted (e.g., worsened, or perhaps enhanced).

This paper applies communication skills theories and conceptual accounts of technology use to examine the role of technology use on an individual’s ability to accurately perceive the nonverbal behavior displayed by others (i.e., nonverbal decoding skill). For the purposes of this paper, we define technology use as any technology or application on a smart phone that contributes to communication online (e.g., use of social media sites, texting, emailing). Cell phone use is the predominant method of technology use by young adults in the United States today with 96% of 18–26 years-old young adults reporting ownership of a smart phone ( Pew Research Center., 2019 ). Therefore, for the remainder of the paper, when discussing technology use, we are referring specifically to smart phone use.

We start by reviewing two competing hypotheses, that technology use either enhances or hinders communication skills. We then present results from two cross-sectional studies and a mini meta-analysis of these studies on the relationship between technology use and nonverbal decoding skill to inform our understanding of which of the competing hypotheses is more likely supported. Finally, we make recommendations for future research aimed at disentangling the causal relationship between technology use and nonverbal decoding skill.

Technology Use May Enhance Communication Skills

The most effective way to improve nonverbal decoding skill is by practicing decoding nonverbal cues and receiving feedback on the accuracy of one’s perceptions ( Blanch-Hartigan et al., 2012 ; Schlegel et al., 2017a ). Regarding the relationship between technology use and nonverbal decoding skill, some theorists have argued that technology-mediated communication may enhance communication skills by providing a safe environment to practice sending and receiving nonverbal cues, and allowing for feedback regarding the accuracy of one’s perceptions (e.g., Stritzke et al., 2004 ; Ellison et al., 2007 ; Valkenburg and Peter, 2009 ). Because it is unusual in face-to-face interactions to receive feedback about one’s decoding ability, it may be that spending more time using technology to interact with others may facilitate face-to-face interactions by providing this type of practice and feedback to users on a regular basis.

Liberated Relationship Perspective

One hypothesis which falls into this “enhancement” framework is the Liberated Relationships Perspective ( Hu et al., 2004 ). This theory argues that increased internet usage has allowed individuals who may not typically engage in conversation the opportunity to engage with one another through technology-mediated communication. Some of the constraints may be psychological, such as in cases of shyness and social anxiety ( Stritzke et al., 2004 ), or physical, such as in cases of distant geographical locations ( Ellison et al., 2007 ). According to this framework, internet usage may afford an increase in the number of interactions an individual is able to engage in. If the internet supplements, instead of detracts from, face-to-face interactions, individuals may have increased opportunities to practice nonverbal decoding with a greater number and variety of communication partners.

Internet Enhanced Self-Disclosure Hypothesis

While not directly related to communication skill, the Internet Enhanced Self-Disclosure Hypothesis also provides support for improved nonverbal decoding skill with increased technology use ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2009 ). This theory posits that greater technology use may enhance social connectedness and wellbeing by enhancing online self-disclosure . The authors define online self-disclosure as “online communication about personal topics that are typically not easily disclosed, such as one’s feelings, worries, and vulnerabilities” (p. 2). Because online platforms allow for the sharing of intimate information to a significantly greater degree than do face-to-face interactions, it is likely that individuals are afforded more opportunities to practice decoding and receive feedback regarding affective information. Individuals who engage in technology-mediated communication more frequently may become more skilled decoders of nonverbal information, perhaps for affective information in particular.

Technology Use May Hinder Communication Skills

While these two “enhancement” theories describe the ways in which increased technology usage may allow individuals more opportunities to practice decoding nonverbal communication, others have argued a competing perspective. Specifically, researchers have argued that technology may hinder specific communication skills. Spending time communicating via technology may result in less face-to-face interactions and therefore less practice decoding nonverbal information in whole, as well as from specific cue channels (e.g., vocal tone) which are reduced or absent in many technology platforms ( Kraut et al., 1998 ; Nie, 2001 ; Patterson, 2019 ). In this way, the type of communication skills learned or practiced in technology-mediated communication are not equivalent to, and may even hinder, the skills required to decode nonverbal behavior in face-to-face interactions.

Reduction Hypothesis

In the early 1990s, several researchers theorized that the internet had detrimental effects on adolescent wellbeing and social connectedness ( Kraut et al., 1998 ; Nie, 2001 ). It was assumed that because the internet motivates adolescents to form superficial online relationships with strangers that are less beneficial than their real-world relationships, time spent online occurs at the expense of time spent with existing relationships. The Reduction Hypothesis posits that it is the lack of or decrease in face-to-face interacting that leads to detrimental communicative consequences rather than technology itself ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2009 ).

Valkenburg and Peter (2009) propose two important updates to this theory based on changes in how individuals use the internet to communicate since the Reduction Hypothesis was first introduced. First, in the second half of the 1990s, it was hard to maintain a pre-existing social network on the internet because not a lot of people had access to it, often resulting in online friends separate from offline friends. Today, with more widespread access and utilization of the internet and social media, individuals spend more time online connecting with people they also spend time with in face-to-face interactions as opposed to forming online-only relationships with strangers ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2009 ). However, the communication skills, such as nonverbal decoding, that individuals develop through online interactions may not translate to actual face-to-face interactions. As such, time spent online may stunt the development of nonverbal decoding necessary for face-to-face interactions. Therefore, although our internet habits have changed, the Reduction Hypothesis is still relevant to theorizing regarding the effects of technology use on nonverbal decoding ability.

Cues-Filtered–Out Theory

In addition to reducing the amount of time individuals spend interacting face-to-face, theorists have also noted that many technology-mediated communication platforms greatly reduce both the number as well as the kinds of nonverbal cues technology users are exposed to. Cues absent from some technology-mediated communication (e.g., social media, texting, emailing) can include physical appearance, tone of voice, facial expression, gaze, posture, touch, space, and gestures ( Kiesler et al., 1984 ; Siegel et al., 1986 ). These nonverbal cues are important in expressing relative status, affect, relationship roles, and many other interpersonal dimensions. This Cues-Filtered-Out Theory ( Culnan and Markus, 1987 ; Sproull and Kiesler, 1986 ) suggests that without these cues available, especially for low bandwidth technology (i.e., communication systems with access to only one or two channels such as vocal, kinesics, or proxemics), certain communicative functions are lost. Although higher bandwidth systems may allow for certain nonverbal cues, these cues are often more obvious and lack complexity, which may cause individuals to lose the ability to decode more subtle nonverbal cues (e.g., facial expressions are more complex than emoji’s, vocal intensity is more complex than CAPITALIZING words). Therefore, this theory suggests that the filtering out of important nonverbal cues (e.g., especially for individuals who use low bandwidth technology systems) impacts an individual’s ability to receive practice and feedback on the accuracy of their nonverbal decoding attempts, thereby hindering nonverbal decoding skill ( Walther and Parks, 2002 ).

Current Research and Hypotheses

The primary objective of the current research is to empirically examine the relationship between technology use and nonverbal decoding skill via two studies and a mini meta-analysis combining results from these two studies. Because individuals may use technology the same amount but differ in how they spend their time online, we measured users’ online communication activity via objective global screen time use taken from iPhone users, as well as the degree of self-reported active technology use (posting selfies and photographs, responding to others’ posts) and the degree of self-reported passive technology use (scrolling through photographs and others’ posts but not responding or posting themselves). In addition, we also sought to be thorough in our assessment of nonverbal decoding skill, as researchers have demonstrated that there are different kinds of decoding skills subsumed by a higher-order global decoding skill ( Schlegel et al., 2017a ). Therefore, we employed three distinct measures of nonverbal decoding, two objective assessments of skill using a standardized, validated, and reliable test of emotion recognition [i.e., Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-Adult Faces (DANVA-2AF; Nowicki and Duke, 1994 )] and a newly developed test that assesses relevant decoding ability in the workplace such as inferring behavioral intentions, personality traits, status, interpersonal attitudes (dominance/cooperativeness and motivations), behavioral outcomes, and thoughts and feelings [i.e., the Workplace Interpersonal Perception Skill (WIPS; Dael et al., in preparation )], and one self-report measure [the Emotional Sensitivity subscale of the Social Skills Inventory (SSI; Riggio, 2005 )]. Together, we utilized these various measures of technology and nonverbal decoding skill in order to test the preceding competing hypotheses: (1) more technology use is related to better nonverbal decoding skill vs. (2) more technology use is related to poorer nonverbal decoding skill.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Data were collected from 410 participants in the University of Maine introductory participant pool for a study on perceiving nonverbal signals in others. Of these, 51% were male and 48% were female. A total of 377 (92%) participants identified as white, 15 (4%) as Asian, 14 (3%) as American Indian or Alaska Native, 12 (3%) as Black, 2 (0.5%) as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 33 (8%) as Other. Their ages ranged from 18 to 29 ( M = 19.09, SD = 1.56). A power analysis conducted using G ∗ Power ( Faul et al., 2007 ) assuming a small to medium effect ( r = 0.15) of technology use on nonverbal decoding skill indicated that 343 participants would be needed to achieve 80% power using an alpha level of 0.05 (two-tailed). The final sample of participants exceeds this threshold, indicating that the present study is sufficiently powered to detect small to medium effects.

Technology Use

Three separate measures of technology use were collected from participants. For iPhone users, participants were instructed to navigate to their phone settings and extract their average daily screen time over the last 7 days in minutes ( N = 263). This screen time metric is a real-time report of how much time a participant spends with their phone screen turned on in an average week (i.e., listening to music with one’s screen off is not included). To ensure participants did not alter their responses in order to appear more socially desirable, we also required that they upload a screenshot of this information. In addition to this objective measure of technology use, participants were asked to self-report on a scale of 0–10 from “does not describe me at all” to “describes me very well” how well the following statements described their technology use, “I tend to be an active user, posting frequently” and “I tend to be a passive user, scrolling through posts and photos.” These two questions comprised our self-report measures of technology use: the degree to which a participant endorsed themselves as an active user separately from the degree to which a participant endorsed themselves as a passive user. Because active user endorsement and passive user endorsement were single item questions rather than a single bipolar item, participants could report any combination of active and passive technology use. That is, a participant could endorse a high degree of active use and a high degree of passive use, they could report a low degree of both, or a high degree of one and not the other. For all analyses, we entered both continuous variables to examine how the independent contribution of active and passive use predicted our outcomes of interest.

Nonverbal Decoding Measures

The newly developed WIPS test (Workplace Interpersonal Perception Skill; Dael et al., in preparation ; a = 0.67) assesses multiple aspects of decoding skill using 41 brief video segments with and without sound from three types of role-played workplace interactions: a recruiter-applicant negotiation, a helpdesk trouble-shooting scenario, and a company team meeting. Each segment is paired with a multiple-choice question for which the correct answer was based on actual behavior (what happened in the interaction during or after the video segment), instructions that the actors received (e.g., to be competitive), actors’ self-reported personality, or post-interaction evaluations (e.g. perceptions of the other as competitive) and response options varied from 2 options to 6 options depending on the item. In this way, participants must decode multiple simultaneous nonverbal cues (e.g., tone of voice, facial expression) in order to accurately assess the interpersonal characteristics of any given situation. For some items, the video consisted of multiple short segments (e.g., You will see the same person in two different negotiations signing a contract. In which negotiation did the person negotiate the better deal for herself?) while other videos were based off of just one video (e.g., In the following video, you will see 6 people enter the room for a team meeting. Who is the team leader?). Accuracy is calculated as the proportion correct responses compared against a criterion or correct response for each segment.

Participants also completed the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-Adult Faces (DANVA-2AF; Nowicki and Duke, 1994 ; a = 0.60), a test of emotion recognition ability using static and posed photographs. This measure presents 24 photographs of adult faces with high and low intensity portrayals of the four basic emotions of happiness, anger, sadness, and fear. Accuracy was calculated as the proportion correct.

Finally, participants completed the Emotional Sensitivity (ES; a = 0.80) subscale of the Social Skills Inventory (SSI; Riggio, 2005 ). The ES subscale consists of 15 self-report items, with a 5-point response scale ranging from “Not at all like me” to “Exactly like me.” The ES subscale specifically assesses self-reported skill for decoding emotional and other nonverbal messages (e.g., I always seem to know what people’s true feelings are no matter how hard they try to conceal them) . For analysis purposes, a sum was calculated across items.

Our second study was an exact replication of Study 1 launched approximately 3 months after Study 1 with data from 190 participants from the University of Maine introductory participant pool. Because we had not hypothesized a priori the effect of active and passive technology use on nonverbal decoding skill, we wished to collect a second sample of participants in order to investigate whether the pattern of results we describe in Study 1 would replicate. The demographics of this second sample were comparable to those from our first study, with 91 male participants (48%) and 99 females (52%). Of these, 179 (94%) identified as white, 9 (5%) as Asian, 5 (3%) as Black, 2 (1%) as American Indian or Alaska Native, 1 (0.5%) as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 6 (3%) as Other. Participant’s ages ranged from 18 to 31 ( M = 19.43, SD = 1.57). A power analysis conducted using G ∗ Power ( Faul et al., 2007 ) assuming a small to medium effect derived from Study 1 ( r = 0.20) indicated that 191 participants would be needed to achieve 80% power using an alpha level of 0.05 (two-tailed).

To test our competing hypotheses about the relationship between technology use and nonverbal decoding skill, we first examined bivariate correlations between our study variables. Next, we ran a series of linear regressions on the whole sample in Study 1 and Study 2 controlling for participant gender to examine the independent contribution of active and passive technology use on each of our nonverbal decoding skill measures (accuracy scores on the WIPS test, accuracy scores on the DANVA, and self-reported emotional sensitivity).

To combine results from Study 1 and Study 2, a mini meta-analysis ( Goh et al., 2016 ) was performed for each technology use variable and each nonverbal decoding variable. We used fixed effects in which the mean effect size (i.e., mean correlation) was weighted by sample size. All correlations were Fisher’s z transformed for analyses and converted back to Pearson correlations for presentation.

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations are presented in Table 1 . Contrary to what would be predicted by either theoretical framework, screen time use was unrelated to every measure of nonverbal decoding skill we employed. However, when examining the ways in which participants self-reported spending their time online, a more complex pattern emerged. Specifically, more active technology use was related to higher self-reported nonverbal decoding skill ( r = 0.20, p < 0.001) but lower accuracy score on the WIPS ( r = −0.17, p < 0.001). That is, participants who identified as more active users (i.e., posting frequently) believed that they were better judges of others’ nonverbal communication, but performed significantly worse on an objective test of nonverbal decoding skill (i.e., the WIPS test). On the other hand, participants who reported being more passive users (i.e., reading through posts and looking at other people’s photographs) were significantly more accurate in decoding nonverbal behavior, as measured by the WIPS ( r = 0.14, p = 0.005), although they did not self-report any differences in their nonverbal decoding skills from less passive users as highlighted by the correlation between passive user endorsement and self-reported skill on the ES subscale of the SSI ( r = 0.04, p = 0.484). Neither self-reported passive nor active technology use was significantly related to an individual’s ability to decode facial expressions of emotions, measured via the DANVA-2AF ( p ’s > 0.07).

Study 1 and study 2 means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between technology use, nonverbal decoding skill, and gender.

Gender, Technology Use, and Nonverbal Decoding Skill

Because active and passive technology use were not mutually exclusive (i.e., an individual could report being high on active and passive use), and because gender is related to both technology use ( Jackson et al., 2008 ) as well as nonverbal decoding skill ( Hall and Gunnery, 2013 ), we wished to determine the independent effects of active and passive technology use on nonverbal decoding skill while controlling for gender. Therefore, we first entered active use, passive use, and gender into a regression predicting accuracy scores on the WIPS. Active use remained a significant negative predictor (β std = −0.21, p < 0.001; Table 2 ), suggesting that those who are more active users were worse at decoding nonverbal behavior. Passive use also remained a significant positive predictor (β std = 0.11, p = 0.02), where those who reported spending their time looking at others’ posts and pictures were more accurate in decoding nonverbal behavior. Further, these two effects were significant even after controlling for gender, which also significantly predicted higher scores on the WIPS test (β std = 0.21, p < 0.001; female coded as 1, male coded as 0). Approximately 8% of the variance in WIPS test scores was accounted for when active use, passive use, and gender were entered as predictors.

Regression results from study 1 and study 2 examining the independent contribution of technology use variables on nonverbal decoding skill.

We next entered active use, passive use, and gender into a regression predicting accuracy scores on the DANVA-2AF. None of these variables, apart from gender (β std = 0.17, p = 0.001), significantly predicted scores on the DANVA-2AF ( Table 2 ). Approximately 4% of the variance in DANVA-2AF scores was accounted for by these predictor variables.

When active use, passive use, and gender were entered into a regression predicting self-reported nonverbal decoding skill, active use remained a significant positive predictor (β std = 0.18, p < 0.001), such that those who were more active users self-reported that they were better at decoding nonverbal information from others ( Table 2 ). While more passive use was unrelated to self-reported nonverbal decoding skill, gender remained a marginally significant positive predictor (β std = 0.10, p = 0.052) indicating that females reported being more skilled nonverbal decoders than males. Approximately 5% of the variance in self-reported nonverbal decoding skill was accounted for when active use, passive use, and gender were entered as predictors.

While results from Study 1 were neither supportive of an enhancing or suppressing effect of global technology usage on nonverbal decoding skill, we did find that the ways individuals used technology mattered (i.e., actively versus passively). Because this active/passive relationship was not hypothesized a priori , we examined these effects in a separate sample of participants. Therefore, akin to Study 1, we first examined the bivariate correlations between our measures of technology use and nonverbal decoding skill. We once again found that screen time use was unrelated to objective measures of nonverbal decoding skill—i.e., the DANVA and WIPS ( p’s > 0.20). However, in Study 2 objective screen time use was significantly and positively related to self-reported nonverbal decoding skill ( r = 0.17, p = 0.050) ( Table 1 ).

Replicating Study 1’s findings, active technology use was also related to higher self-reported nonverbal decoding skill ( r = 0.25, p = 0.001), but lower objective nonverbal decoding skill as measured by the WIPS ( r = −0.16, p = 0.028). Individuals who identified as more passive users were once again significantly more accurate in decoding nonverbal behavior, as measured by the WIPS ( r = 0.27, p < 0.001), although they did not self-report any differences in their nonverbal decoding skills from less passive users ( r = −0.03, p = 0.653). Neither self-reported passive nor active technology use was significantly related to an individual’s ability to decode facial expressions of emotions, measured via the DANVA-2AF ( p’s > 0.167).

We deconstructed these effects by entering active use, passive use, and gender into three separate linear regressions predicting the WIPS, DANVA-2AF, and self-reported nonverbal decoding skill. We regressed our three predictor variables on scores from the WIPS. Replicating regression results from Study 1, active technology use was a marginally significant negative predictor of nonverbal decoding skill (β std = −0.13, p = 0.085), passive use remained a significant positive predictor of nonverbal decoding skill (β std = 0.25, p = 0.001), and gender was a significant predictor, with females scoring higher on the WIPS test compared to males (β std = 0.27, p < 0.001). This model accounted for 15% of the variance in WIPS scores.

Next, we regressed active use, passive use, and gender on scores from the DANVA-2AF. Once again, gender was the only significant positive predictor (β std = 0.32, p < 0.001), with females scoring significantly higher than males. Approximately 11% of the variance in DANVA-2AF scores was accounted for by these three predictors.

When active use, passive use, and gender were entered into a regression predicting self-reported nonverbal decoding skill, active use was a significant positive predictor, similar to Study 1, (β std = 0.21, p = 0.006), such that those who were more active technology users self-reported having more skill in decoding nonverbal information. Reporting more passive technology use was unrelated to self-reported nonverbal decoding skill. Gender remained a significant positive predictor (β std = 0.31, p < 0.001) indicating that females self-reported more nonverbal decoding skill than males. Approximately 16% of the variance in self-reported nonverbal decoding skill was accounted for when active use, passive use, and gender were entered as predictors.

Mini Meta-Analysis

Finally, we conducted a mini meta-analysis ( Goh et al., 2016 ) in order to provide a consistent account regarding the relationship between technology use and objective and self-reported measures of nonverbal decoding skill across these two studies. After combining these effects across both studies, we found that individuals who self-reported more active technology use self-reported higher nonverbal decoding skill (M r = 0.22, p < 0.001), but scored lower on one objective index of nonverbal decoding skill (i.e., the WIPS test: M r = −0.17, p < 0.001). Moreover, individuals who self-reported more passive use scored significantly higher on both objective indices of nonverbal decoding (i.e., the WIPS test: M r = 0.18, p < 0.001 and the DANVA2-AF: M r = 0.09, p = 0.023), but did not self-report higher levels of nonverbal decoding skill (M r = 0.02, p = 0.667; Table 3 ).

Mini meta-analysis results from study 1 and study 2 examining combined correlations between measures of technology use and nonverbal decoding skill.

While many have theorized about the potential positive or negative effects that technology may have on communication skills, no studies to date have empirically examined the relationship between technology use and nonverbal decoding skill. In order to begin to understand the ways in which technology use and nonverbal decoding skill are related, we measured multiple facets of each construct to more thoroughly examine their empirical relationships with one another.

While overall screen time was unrelated to any measure of nonverbal decoding skill, interesting and consistent patterns emerged when looking at the way individuals spent their time using technology. Specifically, individuals who reported actively posting and engaging with technology-mediated communication self-reported that they were more accurate at decoding the nonverbal behaviors of others. However, these more active users were more likely to score lower on objective measures of nonverbal decoding skill. Conversely, individuals who reported spending their time online passively viewing others’ posts and photos scored higher on objective nonverbal decoding skill but did not self-report that their skills were any better.

These findings lend support to the role of practice and feedback as an effective way to increase nonverbal decoding skill ( Blanch-Hartigan et al., 2012 ). Passive users of communication technology likely receive practice in decoding nonverbal cues simply by being exposed to other users’ content (e.g., pictures, posts, videos) and thus a greater frequency of nonverbal cues. Indeed, the average screen time reported across both studies was about 5 h a day, meaning that passive users may spend up to 5 h each day practicing decoding nonverbal cues. In contrast to “other-focused” passive users, active users likely lose out on a plethora of communication cues as they report spending their time online engaging in “self-focused” activities. That is, although active users likely receive a great deal of practice encoding their own thoughts, feelings, attitudes, etc., they do not receive this same practice when it comes to decoding the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, etc. of others.

Therefore, these results support both the hypothesis that technology use enhances nonverbal decoding skill, and the hypothesis that technology use worsens nonverbal decoding skill. The key lies in how one spends their time using technological platforms. Those who use technology to practice making judgments of others may benefit from time online and learn skills to enhance their face-to-face interactions. However, greater technology use may have the opposite effect for those who choose to spend their time online creating and posting their own content, instead of interacting with the content of others. In these cases, technology may have adverse effects on an individual’s nonverbal decoding skill in face-to-face interactions.

The current research is not without limitations. First, we are limited by our homogenous sample of college participants in one US state. More research is needed to see if the relationship between active and passive technology use and nonverbal decoding skill will generalize more broadly. In addition, while the WIPS test has many advantages to other tests of nonverbal decoding ability (e.g., good reliability and validity, real-world workplace context, dynamic stimuli, many domains of nonverbal sensitivity), it is not yet a published, validated test of decoding ability. Additionally, although self-reporting active and passive technology use provides valid information regarding the way participant’s view their online activity, or the way they are motivated to be, future studies should confirm these self-reports with objective measures in order to assess the accuracy of individual’s self-perceptions. We also examined one aspect of technology use on smartphone devices and the questions focused on self-reported social media use. The role of other technology-mediated communication platforms, such as teleconferencing or interactive video gaming, deserve future study. In our regression models, only 4–16% of the variance in decoding skills was explained by our predictors; therefore, there are many other factors that impact decoding skill ability which should be explored in future work. While the WIPS test is not validated yet (i.e., in prep), it is more ecologically valid than many other available standardized tests of decoding ability because it includes many workplace scenarios and dynamic video rather than focusing on one domain (e.g., emotion recognition like the DANVA-2AF) or using just static photographs where participants often show a ceiling effect on accuracy. In addition, and explained extensively below, we cannot make causal claims about the direction of the relationships given that our data was cross-sectional.

Suggestions to Further Theories of Technology Use and Nonverbal Decoding Skill

Although our data suggest that the way in which an individual communicates with technology may impact nonverbal decoding skills globally (i.e., as measured by the WIPS test), we only observed a marginally significant effect to suggest that technology use was related to an individual’s ability to decode facial expressions of emotion measured via the DANVA-2AF. While it may be that technology truly does not impact this facet of nonverbal decoding skill, it is also possible that we did not measure technology use at a detailed enough level to reveal any meaningful relationships. Although participants reported technology use generally, different social media and technology communication platforms are vastly different in their bandwidth and each emphasize distinct cue channels. For example, while some platforms emphasize visual cues (e.g., Instagram, Snapchat) others may underscore more verbal cues (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). Collapsing technology use across all platforms may dilute interesting relationships between particular social media apps, cue channels, and nonverbal decoding skill. For instance, it may be that individuals who passively use applications which highlight posting pictures or videos receive more practice in decoding facial expressions, and therefore may score higher on emotion decoding tests such as the DANVA-2AF. Therefore, we urge future researchers to be thoughtful in selecting the most relevant nonverbal decoding skill measure for their particular study Stosic and Bernieri (in prep) taking into account domain (e.g., emotion recognition or general workplace decoding skills) as decoding ability does not appear to be a single skill ( Schlegel et al., 2017a ), and to further explore the ways in which specific technology-mediated platforms, opposed to global technology use, impact vital communication skills.

In addition to delineating more precise constructs, the areas of technology and nonverbal communication research would benefit from an increase in experimental designs. While we have interpreted our data as technology use potentially influencing nonverbal decoding skills, it is highly plausible that the causal relationship is reversed. Individuals who are more accurate perceivers of others’ nonverbal behavior may be more likely to use technology in a passive way because they are more practiced, more comfortable, or more engaged with others. Those who are less accurate perceivers of others’ nonverbal behavior may use technology more actively because they are more self-focused or find perceiving others to be more challenging or less rewarding. The correlational nature of the current studies does not allow us to untangle the direction of these effects. Therefore, we urge future work to consider experimental designs to examine the causal relationship between technology use and communication ability, particularly nonverbal decoding skill.

While experimental designs on this topic are rare, we are aware of one study that employed a quasi-experimental design to manipulate technology use. Age-matched cohorts of preteens attended a summer camp in a staggered order such that one group went earlier than the other group ( Uhls et al., 2014 ). While at camp, electronics including television, computers, and mobile phones were not allowed. The first group to attend camp was the experimental group ( N = 51) and the group that stayed at school while the first group was at camp was considered the control group ( N = 54). After just 5 days of interacting face-to-face without the use of any technology, preteens’ recognition of nonverbal emotion cues from photographs and videos (using the DANVA-2 Child and Adult Faces and the Child and Adolescent Social Perception Measure) was significantly greater compared to the control group. From this, we can gather that the short-term effects of increased opportunities for face-to-face interaction, combined with time away from screen-based media and digital communication, improved preteens’ understanding of and ability to decode nonverbal emotion cues.

Completely removing technology can be difficult in a real-world context; however, there are a variety of methods we propose to untangle the relationship between technology use and nonverbal decoding skill. There are applications and settings on most smartphones that display an alert when the user has reached a screen time maximum for the day. Researchers could consider a dose-response experiment in which they randomly assign different allowed hours of screen time to users each day for a series of days. One could then understand if different doses of screen time lead to higher or lower levels of nonverbal decoding skill.

In another potential research design, researchers could randomly assign the way technology is used by participants. Researchers could assign individuals as “passive users” who are not allowed to post but must read through others’ posts and/or photographs. Some questions to consider are whether or not this would facilitate practice, contribute to learning, and improve nonverbal decoding skill. Another quasi-experimental design could follow emerging adolescents with or without phones and assess differences in their nonverbal decoding skills, accounting for covariates and confounders such as gender, socioeconomic status, parents’ educational levels, and baseline communication skills.

In addition to experimentally manipulating technology use, research could examine and potentially rule out the reverse causality claim that nonverbal decoding skill is driving technology use. To do this, researchers could train participants on nonverbal decoding skill using validated trainings, such as the Geneva Emotion Recognition Test training (GERT; Schlegel et al., 2017b ), and then assess whether technology use changes over time or if training nonverbal decoding skill makes technology-mediated communication smoother or more rewarding.

As the use of technology-mediated communication continues to expand, it is crucial for psychological research to address the positive and negative consequences of technology use on communication skills, in particular nonverbal communication. The current research suggests that it may not be the technology use itself, but rather how actively or passively users engage with technology, that facilitates or hinders nonverbal decoding skill. We ultimately found support for all hypotheses (i.e., Liberated Relationship Perspective, Internet Enhanced Self Disclosure Hypothesis, Reduction Hypothesis, and Cues Filtered Out Theory) but the ways in which the hypotheses were supported depended on how users interacted with technology. Our results showed that those who use technology in a more passive way (reading and look at others’ posts) had higher nonverbal decoding accuracy. That is, more passive users may benefit from time online and learn skills to enhance their face-to-face communication (supporting the Liberated Relationship Perspective and Internet Enhanced Self Disclosure Hypothesis). For those who reported more active use (creating and posting their own content), they had lower nonverbal decoding accuracy. For these more active users, technology may have adverse effects on their ability to read and respond to others in face-to-face communication (supporting the Reduction Hypothesis and Cues Filtered Out Theory).

We believe these results to be encouraging, as some of the fears regarding the negative impact of technology on an individual’s communication skills may not come to fruition if technology is used in a more passive, observational manner rather than an active, self-focused manner. Beyond these results, we also provide researchers with suggestions to further the field of technology use and communication skills. Due to the growing diversity in technology-mediated communication platforms, we urge researchers to account for the different functions theses platforms afford users. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, we urge researchers to explore experimental designs to determine causal pathways in the complex relationship between technology and communication skills. Researchers are beginning to understand how the technological revolution is changing the ways in which humans navigate social interactions. A deeper appreciation for this complexity can lead to the development of interventions to enhance and not hinder our communication skills with the increasing presence and benefits of technology in our lives.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the University of Maine IRB. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

MR, MS, and JC contributed to conception, design of the study, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. MR organized the database and performed the statistical analysis. DB-H wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank research assistant, Vasiliqi Turlla, for her help in data collection and data cleaning and Herbert Ruben for always asking what technology was doing to our communication skills.

• Aslam S. (2020a). Facebook by the Numbers (2020): Stats, Demographics & Fun Facts. Available online at: https://www.omnicoreagency.com/facebook-statistics/ (accessed September 28, 2020) [ Google Scholar ]
• Aslam S. (2020b). Snapchat by the Numbers (2020): Stats, Demographics & Fun Facts. Available online at: https://www.omnicoreagency.com/snapchat-statistics/ (accessed September 28, 2020) [ Google Scholar ]
• Blanch-Hartigan D., Andrzejewski S. A., Hill K. M. (2012). The effectiveness of training to improve person perception accuracy: a meta-analysis. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34 483–498. 10.1080/01973533.2012.728122 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Culnan M. J., Markus M. L. (1987). “ Information technologies ,” in Handbook of organizational Communication: an Interdisciplinary Perspective , eds Jablin F. M., Putnam L. L., Roberts K. H., Porter L. W. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; ), 420–443. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dael N., Schlegel K., Ruben M. A., Schmid Mast M. The Workplace Interpersonal Perception Skill (WIPS) test: Validation of a Performance Measure of Broad Interpersonal Accuracy. (in prep) [ Google Scholar ]
• Döring N., Pöschl S. (2008). “ Nonverbal cues in mobile phone text messages: the effects of chronemics and proxemics ,” in the Reconstruction of Space and Time: Mobile Communication Practices. eds Ling R., Campbell S. W. (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers; ), 109–136. 10.4324/9781315134499-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellison N. B., Steinfield C., Lampe C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 12 1143–1168. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., Buchner A. (2007). G ∗ power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39 175–191. 10.3758/bf03193146 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferrán-Urdaneta C., Storck J. (1997). “ Truth or deception: the impact of videoconferencing for job interviews ,” in Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 97) , (Atlanta, GA: ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Goh J. X., Hall J. A., Rosenthal R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: some arguments on why and a primer on how. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 10 535–549. 10.1111/spc3.12267 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall J. A., Gunnery S. D. (2013). “ Gender differences in nonverbal communication ,” in Handbooks of Communication Science. Nonverbal Communication , eds Hall J. A., Knapp M. L. (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; ), 639–669. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall J. A., Andrzejewski S. A., Yopchick J. E. (2009). Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: a meta-analysis. J. Nonverbal Behav. 33 149–180. 10.1007/s10919-009-0070-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu Y., Wood J. F., Smith V., Westbrook N. (2004). Friendships through IM: examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 10 38–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson L. A., Zhao Y., Kolenic A., III., Fitzgerald H. E., Harold R., Von Eye A. (2008). Race, gender, and information technology use: the new digital divide. Cyber Psychol. Behav. 11 437–442. 10.1089/cpb.2007.0157 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiesler S., Siegel J., McGuire T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Am. Psychol. 39 1123–1134. 10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraut R., Patterson M., Lundmark V., Kiesler S., Mukopadhyay T., Scherlis W. (1998). Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? Am. Psychol. 53 1017–1031. 10.1037/0003-066x.53.9.1017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neureiter K., Fuchsberger V., Murer M., Tscheligi M. (2013). “ Hands and eyes: how eye contact is linked to gestures in video conferencing ,” in Proceedings of the CHI ‘13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems , eds Mackay W. E., Brewster S. A., Bødker S. (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery; ), 127–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nie N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations and the internet: reconciling conflicting findings. Am. Behav. Sci. 45 420–435. 10.1177/00027640121957277 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowicki S., Duke M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: the diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy scale. J. Nonverbal Behav. 18 9–35. 10.1007/bf02169077 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson M. L. (2019). A systems model of dyadic nonverbal interaction. J. Nonverbal Behav. 43 111–132. 10.1007/s10919-018-00292-w [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pew Research Center. (2019). Mobile Fact Sheet. Available online at: www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ (accessed November 15, 2020) [ Google Scholar ]
• Riggio R. E. (2005). “ The social skills inventory (SSI): measuring nonverbal and social skills ,” in the Sourcebook of Nonverbal Measures Going Beyond Words , ed Manusov V. L. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 25–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sayce D. (2020). The Number of Tweets Per Day in 2020. Available online at: https://www.dsayce.com/social-media/tweets-day/ (accessed September 28, 2020) [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel K., Boone R. T., Hall J. A. (2017a). Individual differences in interpersonal accuracy: a multi-level meta-analysis to assess whether judging other people is one skill or many. J. Nonverbal Behav. 41 103–137. 10.1007/s10919-017-0249-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel K., Vicaria I. M., Isaacowitz D. M., Hall J. A. (2017b). Effectiveness of a short audiovisual emotion recognition training program in adults. Motiv. Emot. 41 646–660. 10.1007/s11031-017-9631-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegel J., Dubrovsky V., Kiesler S., McGuire T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 37 157–187. 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90050-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sproull L., Kiesler S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science 32, 1492–1512. 10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stritzke W. G., Nguyen A., Durkin K. (2004). Shyness and computer-mediated communication: a self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychol. 6 1–22. 10.1207/s1532785xmep0601_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tocci M. (2020). Text Marketing Statistics You Need To Know: SimpleTexting. Available online at: https://simpletexting.com/all-the-text-marketing-statistics-you-need-to-know/ (accessed September 28, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Uhls Y. T., Michikyan M., Morris J., Garcia D., Small G. W., Zgourou E., et al. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Comput. Hum. Behav. 39 387–392. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valkenburg P. M., Peter J. (2009). Social consequences of the internet for adolescents: a decade of research. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18 1–5. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01595.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vinciarelli A. (2017). “ Body language without a body: nonverbal communication in technology mediated settings ,” in Proceedings of the International Multimedia Conference , (Mountain View, CA: ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Walther J. B., Parks M. R. (2002). “ Cues filtered out, cues filtered ”. Handbook of Interpersonal Communication , eds Knapp M. L., Miller G. R. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication; ) [ Google Scholar ]

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

What Makes Technology Good or Bad for Us?

Everyone’s worried about smartphones. Headlines like “ Have smartphones destroyed a generation? ” and “ Smartphone addiction could be changing your brain ” paint a bleak picture of our smartphone addiction and its long-term consequences. This isn’t a new lament—public opinion at the advent of the newspaper worried that people would forego the stimulating pleasures of early-morning conversation in favor of reading the daily .

Is the story of technology really that bad? Certainly there’s some reason to worry. Smartphone use has been linked to serious issues, such as dwindling attention spans , crippling depression , and even increased incidence of brain cancer . Ultimately, though, the same concern comes up again and again: Smartphones can’t be good for us, because they’re replacing the real human connection of the good old days.

Everyone’s heard how today’s teens just sit together in a room, texting, instead of actually talking to each other. But could those teenagers actually be getting something meaningful and real out of all that texting?

The science of connection

A quick glance at the research on technology-mediated interaction reveals an ambivalent literature. Some studies show that time spent socializing online can decrease loneliness , increase well-being , and help the socially anxious learn how to connect to others. Other studies suggest that time spent socializing online can cause loneliness , decrease well-being , and foster a crippling dependence on technology-mediated interaction to the point that users prefer it to face-to-face conversation.

It’s tempting to say that some of these studies must be right and others wrong, but the body of evidence on both sides is a little too robust to be swept under the rug. Instead, the impact of social technology is more complicated. Sometimes, superficially similar behaviors have fundamentally different consequences. Sometimes online socialization is good for you, sometimes it’s bad, and the devil is entirely in the details.

This isn’t a novel proposition; after all, conflicting results started appearing within the first few studies into the internet’s social implications, back in the 1990s. Many people have suggested that to understand the consequences of online socialization, we need to dig deeper into situational factors and circumstances. But what we still have to do is move beyond recognition of the problem to provide an answer: When, how, and why are some online interactions great, while others are dangerous?

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework

As a scientist of close relationships, I can’t help but see online interactions differently from thinkers in other fields. People build relationships by demonstrating their understanding of each other’s needs and perspectives, a cyclical process that brings them closer together. If I tell you my secrets, and you respond supportively, I’m much more likely to confide in you again—and you, in turn, are much more likely to confide in me.

This means that every time two people talk to each other, an opportunity for relationship growth is unfolding. Many times, that opportunity isn’t taken; we aren’t about to have an in-depth conversation with the barista who asks for our order. But connection is always theoretically possible, and that’s true whether we’re interacting online or face-to-face.

Close relationships are the bread and butter of happiness—and even health. Being socially isolated is a stronger predictor of mortality than is smoking multiple cigarettes a day . If we want to understand the role technology plays in our well-being, we need to start with the role it plays in our relationships.

And it turns out that the kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships. Spending your time online by scheduling interactions with people you see day in and day out seems to pay dividends in increased social integration . Using the internet to compensate for being lonely just makes you lonelier; using the internet to actively seek out connection has the opposite effect .

“The kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships”

On the other hand, technology-mediated interactions that don’t really address our close relationships don’t seem to do us any good—and might, in fact, do us harm. Passively scrolling through your Facebook feed without interacting with people has been linked to decreased well-being and increased depression post-Facebook use.

That kind of passive usage is a good example of “ social snacking .” Like eating junk food, social snacking can temporarily satisfy you, but it’s lacking in nutritional content. Looking at your friends’ posts without ever responding might make you feel more connected to them, but it doesn’t build intimacy.

Passive engagement has a second downside, as well: social comparison . When we compare our messy lived experiences to others’ curated self-presentations, we are likely to suffer from lowered self-esteem , happiness, and well-being. This effect is only exacerbated when we consume people’s digital lives without interacting with them, making it all too easy to miss the less photogenic moments of their lives.

Moving forward

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework doesn’t explain everything that might influence our well-being after spending time on social media. The internet poses plenty of other dangers—for two examples, the sense of wasting time or emotional contagion from negative news. However, a focus on meaningful social interaction can help explain decades of contradictory findings. And even if the framework itself is challenged by future work, its central concept is bound to be upheld: We have to study the details of how people are spending their time online if we want to understand its likely effects.

In the meantime, this framework has some practical implications for those worried about their own online time. If you make sure you’re using social media for genuinely social purposes, with conscious thought about how it can improve your life and your relationships, you’ll be far more likely to enjoy your digital existence.

This article was originally published on the Behavioral Scientist . Read the original article .

About the Author

Jenna Clark

Jenna Clark, Ph.D. , is a senior behavioral researcher at Duke University's Center for Advanced Hindsight, where she works to help people make healthy decisions in spite of themselves. She's also interested in how technology contributes to our well-being through its effect on our close personal relationships.

You May Also Enjoy

Are Smartphones Bad for Teen Mental Health?

Does Technology Cut Us Off from Other People?

How to Keep Your Smartphone from Hurting Your Relationships

How to Stop Your Smartphone From Hurting Your Health

Five Ways to Build Caring Community on Social Media

How Smartphones Are Killing Conversation

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Communication and Culture
• Communication and Social Change
• Communication and Technology
• Communication Theory
• Critical/Cultural Studies
• Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
• Health and Risk Communication
• Intergroup Communication
• International/Global Communication
• Interpersonal Communication
• Journalism Studies
• Language and Social Interaction
• Mass Communication
• Media and Communication Policy
• Organizational Communication
• Political Communication
• Rhetorical Theory
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Communication technology and interpersonal relationships.

• Andrew M. Ledbetter Andrew M. Ledbetter Department of Communication Studies, Texas Christian University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.497
• Published online: 22 August 2017

Owing to advances in communication technology, the human race now possesses more opportunities to interact with interpersonal partners than ever before. Particularly in recent decades, such technology has become increasingly faster, mobile, and powerful. Although tablets, smartphones, and social media are relatively new, the impetus behind their development is old, as throughout history humans have developed mechanisms for communicating ideas that transcend inherent temporal and spatial limitations of face-to-face communication. In the ancient past, humans developed writing and the alphabet to preserve knowledge across time, with the later development of the printing press further facilitating the mass distribution of written ideas. Later, the telegraph was arguably the first technology to separate communication from transportation, and the telephone enabled people at a distance to hear the warmth and intimacy of the human voice. The development of the Internet consolidates and advances these technologies by facilitating pictorial and video interactions, and the mobility provided by cell phones and other technologies makes the potential for communication with interpersonal partners nearly ubiquitous. As such, these technologies reconfigure perception of time and space, creating the sense of a smaller world where people can begin and manage interpersonal relationships across geographic distance.

These developments in communication technology influence interpersonal processes in at least four ways. First, they introduce media choice as a salient question in interpersonal relationships. As recently as the late 20th century, people faced relatively few options for communicating with interpersonal partners; by the early years of the 21st century, people possessed a sometimes bewildering array of channel choices. Moreover, these choices matter because of the relational messages they send; for example, choosing to end a romantic relationship over the phone may communicate more sensitivity than choosing to do so via text messaging, or publicly on social media. Second, communication technology affords new opportunities to begin relationships and, through structural features of the media, shape how those meetings occur. The online dating industry generates over $1 billion in profit, with most Americans agreeing it is a good way to meet romantic partners; friendships also form online around shared interests and through connections on social media. Third, communication technology alters the practices people use to maintain interpersonal relationships. In addition to placing traditional forms of relational maintenance in more public spaces, social media facilitates passive browsing as a strategy for keeping up with interpersonal partners. Moreover, mobile technology affords partners increased geographic and temporal flexibility when keeping contact with partners, yet simultaneously, it may produce feelings of over-connectedness that hamper the desire for personal autonomy. Fourth, communication technology makes interpersonal networks more visibly manifest and preserves their continuity over time. This may provide an ongoing convoy of social support and, through increased efficiency, augment the size and diversity of social networks.

• interpersonal communication
• impression formation
• relational maintenance
• social networks
• social media
• computer-mediated communication
• long-distance relationships

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 08 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

• How Technology Has Affected Communication Words: 933
• How Technology Affects Communication Words: 636
• Technology and Interpersonal Communication Words: 1566
• The Relationships Between Technology Progress and Communication Words: 567
• Communication Technology and the Reduced Contacts of People Words: 648
• Innovative Technologies for Communication Words: 559
• Technology Impact on Communication Words: 555
• Modern Technologies Role in Communication Words: 569
• Technology and Communication in Today’s World Words: 869
• Technology and Communication: The Impact of Information Technologies and the Lack of Personal Contact Words: 566

The Impact of Modern Technologies on Communication

Modern technologies have changed our life. People have constant access to the internet where they spend a lot of time working, studying and communicating with each other. Technologies make communication easier and let people communicate at long distances. There has been a movement away from face-to-face meetings to virtual communication. Technology has brought a revolutionary transformation in the way we communicate with each other (Vitak).

The influence of modern technologies on interpersonal communication has a lot of advantages as well as disadvantages. The world is like a global village where people can communicate with each other from all corners of our planet. It facilitates people’s lives in many ways. People can keep in touch at long distances. There are a lot of opportunities on the internet. People can earn money, have an education and even fall in love via the internet (Holtz). Although the use of the internet has enlarged the social circles of many people it makes it quite complicated to communicate face to face. Each individual may provide only the information which he/she wants and as the result, both of them have wrong representation and unrealistic expectations about each other. The bonds between people become less firm and it changes human relationships in the whole society. People have become lonely despite the hundreds of virtual friends (Thomas).

According to the statistics of 2008, young people are accustomed to communication via modern technologies while old people give their preference to face-to-face communication (Vitak). Why do more and more people prefer to communicate via the internet? It is very convenient to solve all problems sitting in front of the screen. It is not necessary to spend time getting to a particular place to visit other people. Technologies save our time and at the same time stealing it. More than that, it is easier to communicate via the internet. Young people may have hundreds of virtual friends, communicate with them and get acquainted with new ones what has become difficult for them in a real life. It is not necessary to control your behavior or emotions which may spoil your image. The other people imagine you in the way you want they do it. On the internet, you may be the person that you want to be. But who you are in real life, nobody knows.

As the result, people spend more time communicating via the internet and they lose the skills of real communication. They are accustomed to working with their fingers typing all information they want to tell without straining their tongues. People avoid a lot of awkward situations which confuse them in real-life communicating with the help of the internet. If you don’t know something that you are asking for, you may easily find it on the internet and create the image of a well-educated and clever person while in real communication you may be puzzled by this question. People who spend a lot of time communicating via the internet are accustomed to using acronyms, emoticons and abbreviations in their writing which spoil their communicating skills. It becomes more difficult for young people to be eloquent in real communication and to express their thoughts in an appropriate way.

Modern technologies make people more connected with the world on the one hand and more isolated on the other hand. The ease of communication provided by technologies has improved our lives and makes them impersonal. Real emotions and feelings cannot be replaced by the convenience of social nets, emails and video conferences. Charles Dickens writes: “Electric communication will never be a substitute for the face of someone who with their soul encourages another person to be brave and true”.

Works Cited

Holtz, Shel. “The impact of New Technologies on Internal Communication”. Melcrum Publishing . 2012.

Thomas, Matthew. “The Impacts of Technology on Communication-Mapping the Limits of Online Discussions Forums”. The University of Adelaide . 2012.

Vitak, Jessica. “New Communication Technologies’ Impact on Young Adults.” Pew Internet & America Life Project , 2008.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, December 12). The Impact of Modern Technologies on Communication. https://studycorgi.com/the-impact-of-modern-technologies-on-communication/

"The Impact of Modern Technologies on Communication." StudyCorgi , 12 Dec. 2021, studycorgi.com/the-impact-of-modern-technologies-on-communication/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'The Impact of Modern Technologies on Communication'. 12 December.

1. StudyCorgi . "The Impact of Modern Technologies on Communication." December 12, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-impact-of-modern-technologies-on-communication/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "The Impact of Modern Technologies on Communication." December 12, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-impact-of-modern-technologies-on-communication/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "The Impact of Modern Technologies on Communication." December 12, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-impact-of-modern-technologies-on-communication/.

This paper, “The Impact of Modern Technologies on Communication”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 8, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

More From Forbes

The role of technology in the evolution of communication.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

For as long as humans have been on this planet, we’ve invented forms of communication—from smoke signals and messenger pigeons to the telephone and email—that have constantly evolved how we interact with each other. 

One of the biggest developments in communication came in 1831 when the electric telegraph was invented. While post existed as a form of communication before this date, it was electrical engineering in the 19th century which had a revolutionary impact. 

Now, digital methods have superseded almost all other forms of communication, especially in business. I can’t remember the last time I hand wrote a letter, rather than an email at work, even my signature is digital these days. Picking up the phone is a rare occurrence too—instead, I FaceTime, Zoom, or join a Google Hangout. 

When I look back at how communication has advanced over the years, it really is quite incredible…

The Telephone 

In 1849, the telephone was invented and within 50 years it was an essential item for homes and offices, but tethering impacted the flexibility and privacy of the device. Then, came the mobile phone. In 1973, Motorola created a mobile phone which kick-started a chain of developments that transformed communication forever. 

Early smartphones were primarily aimed towards the enterprise market, bridging the gap between telephones and personal digital assistants (PDAs), but they were bulky and had short battery lives. By 1996, Nokia was releasing phones with QWERTY keyboards and by 2010, the majority of Android phones were touchscreen-only. 

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

In 2007, Steve Jobs revealed the first iPhone to the world and Apple paved the way for the aesthetics of modern smartphones. Before the iPhone, “flip phones”, and phones with a split keyboard and screen were the norm. A year later, a central application store with an initial 500 downloadable ‘apps’ was launched. Currently, there are over two million apps available in the Apple App Store. 

The Internet 

Since the mid-1990s, the Internet has had a revolutionary impact on communication, including the rise of near-instant communication by electronic mail, instant messaging, voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone calls, two-way interactive video calls, discussion forums, blogs, and social networking. 

The internet has made communication easier and faster, it’s allowed us to stay in contact with people regardless of time and location. It’s accelerated the pace of business and widened the possibilities within the enterprise space. It’s allowed people to find their voice and express themselves through social media, YouTube and memes. The internet has connected and divided us like nothing before. 

As a byproduct of the World Wide Web, email was introduced to the world in 1991 (although it had been operating years before) and it has vastly changed our lives—whether for better or worse depends on your viewpoint. The first users of the messaging platform were educational systems and the military who used email to exchange information. In 2018, there were more than 3.8 billion email users —that’s more than half the planet. By 2022, it’s expected that we will be sending 333 billion personal and business emails each day. 

While email is invaluable and we can’t imagine a world without it, there are tools that are springing up that are giving email a run for its money. Take Slack (an acronym for “Searchable Log of All Communication and Knowledge”) for example, the company which launched in 2014 has often been described as an email killer . However, while Slack has become the most popular chat and productivity tool in the world used by 10 million people every day, email is still going strong. In recognition of this, Slack’s upgrades have ensured that people who still rely heavily on email are not excluded from collaboratory work. 

Photo by Austin Distel on Unsplash

Wearable Technology 

The first instance of wearable technology was a handsfree mobile headset launched in 1999 , which became a piece of tech synonymous with city workers. It gave businesspeople the ability to answer calls on the go, most importantly, while driving.

Ten years ago, the idea that you could make a video call from an item other than a phone would have been a sci-fi dream. Now, with smartwatches, audio sunglasses, and other emerging wearable technology, these capabilities are a part of our daily lives. 

Photo by Luke Chesser on Unsplash

Virtual Reality (VR) 

The next generation of VR has only been around since 2016, but it’s already shaking up communications. The beauty of VR— presence —means you can connect to someone in the same space at the same time, without the time sink and cost of travel, even if participants are on different continents. 

VR also helps to facilitate better communication. In a typical discussion, a lot of information is non-verbal communication which can be transcribed in VR. Voice tone, hesitations, head and hand movements greatly improve the understanding of the participants' emotions and intents. Plus in VR, all distractions are removed and people can be fully focused on what is happening around them. In fact, MeetinVR claims that there is a 25% increase in attention span when meeting in virtual reality compared to video conferencing. 

In addition, research suggests we retain more information and can better apply what we have learned after participating in virtual reality. 3D is a natural communication language overcoming linguistic barriers as well as technical jargon. 

5G, the 5th generation of mobile network, promises much faster data download and upload speeds, wider coverage, and more stable connections. These benefits will bring about significant improvements in communication. Instantaneous communication will be possible and those patchy frustrating video calls will be a thing of the past. 

The average 4G transmission speed currently available for our smartphones is around the 21 Mbps mark. 5G will be 100 to 1000 times faster. The Consumer Technology Association notes that at this speed, you could download a two-hour movie in just 3.6 seconds, versus 6 minutes on 4G or 26 hours on 3G. The impact of 5G will go far beyond our smartphones as it will allow millions of devices to be connected simultaneously. 

Looking ahead, there is already buzz about 6G . Although it’s still in basic research and around 15-20 years away, it’s interesting from an innovation point of view. 6G will form the framework of the connected utopia we aspire towards, and with it will come untold improvements in the speed and consistency of our communication. 

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 09 August 2021

Has the pandemic changed the way we communicate?

• David Westgarth 1  

BDJ In Practice volume  34 ,  pages 14–18 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

37k Accesses

3 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Has COVID-19 changed the what and the how of communication?

What are the implications?

Could the changes be a good thing?

Introduction

There's a very funny picture doing the rounds on social media that says you can drive for four hours in America and you're on the same road in the same State, but in the same distance in UK the accent and name for a bread roll has changed 18 times. Besides the geographical challenges and differences posed by the countries, it is fascinating how language, accent and dialect change so much. Despite spending precisely zero minutes growing up in the North East, it's still the accent people tell me I have. And yet, after a weekend at home in Cumbria, upon my return to the city my Cumbrian accent is stronger than ever. Few people will forget how hilarious former England football manager Steve McLaren adopted a Dutch accent during his time coaching one of the country's clubs, only for it to disappear on his return to England.

The environment around us has a significant impact on what we say and how we say it. Throughout the pandemic, many of the normal social conventions have been put on hold, altered and changed. Dentistry felt those alterations and changes hard, but just how has communication within the profession been impacted?

The what and the how

There has been plenty said about the 'how' changes, most notably the increased use of teledentistry for patient-facing processes. Less has been said about the vast quantity of digital learning that has taken place, for dental students and those fully qualified. The disruption, as with most things since March 2020, provided challenges and opportunities. Research has previously highlighted four key areas that have been adversely impacted: 1

Online communication skills teaching

While not necessarily the optimum way to strengthen communication skills, many teachers are learning and seeking to identify best practices for virtual communication skills teaching during the pandemic. Teachers need information on how best to employ videoconferencing platforms such as Zoom and WebX for experiential communication skills learning, which includes peer role play and practice with simulated patients.

Clinical learners not seeing patients

In many health professional schools around the world, many clinical rotations have been suspended. Sharing resources for continuing case-based and other forms of learning in the absence of direct patient encounters is another pressing need and opportunity.

' The environment around us has a significant impact on what we say and how we say it. Throughout the pandemic, many of the normal social conventions have been put on hold, altered and changed.'

Workplace-based learning

Not all learners have been removed from clinical settings during the pandemic and many, such as residents, are experiencing increased clinical obligations. It will be helpful to identify opportunities for continued emphasis on communication skills learning and development in the clinical setting. Innovations that adhere to the need for physical distancing and still emphasise communication content could include virtual rounding, video recording with asynchronous feedback of learner-patient encounters, and communication-focused debriefing of patient/family encounters.

Virtual communication assessments

In addition to in-person teaching, the pandemic has made in- person assessments such as OSCEs untenable. Many schools are developing successful and innovative ways to continue to conduct communication-focused performance-based assessments, including involvement of simulated patients using videoconferencing platforms.

While I found it interesting that the authors highlighted that there are some successes and innovations to aid students, trainers and qualified alike, the impact caused by a lack of face-to-face training was not discussed. Dentistry by its very nature is hands-on, so who knows what impact that has had on dental student and course attendees? Only time will tell.

In addition to the setting, the qualifications and the virtual nature of conversations, what we say has also changed over the pandemic. Almost every conversation I've had with friends and loved ones has included a discussion on positivity rates, or R value, the vaccine or the desire for things to go back to the way they were. There are few situations where every person on the planet can sympathise and empathise with what you're going through; this is one of those. Pre-pandemic, what did a mask mean? Did it mean ski mask and thoughts of a happier nature? Did it mean a masquerade ball and again, happy, party vibes? In dentistry it was a staple of treating a patient. Its role hasn't changed. The difference was to talk to a patient, you could pop it off as soon as you were done treating them. To this end, it's another example of how practitioners talk to patients has changed. Practitioners need to enhance non-verbal communication to compensate for the loss of visible facial expression, as Jane Merivale has previously written:

'Facial expressions signal our thoughts and emotions and most of us become fairly adept at reading the faces of others to understand what they are thinking and feeling. We have evolved 42 muscles of facial expression for this purpose!

' Many schools are developing successful and innovative ways to continue to conduct communication-focused performance-based assessments, including involvement of simulated patients using videoconferencing platforms.'

'Being able to observe the mouth can impact on the patient's perception of a dentist's emotional intelligence, and their likeability, which directly affects patient satisfaction, regardless of the actual treatment outcome.' 2

Masks, necessary as they are, can create problems. Research shows high-frequency sounds are reduced by 3-4 decibels (dB) when wearing a surgical mask, and by 12 dB when wearing an N95 mask.3 A 10-decibel reduction will be twice as quiet as the original decibel reading. As people age, their hearing loss generally affects these higher frequencies, resulting in greater difficulty hearing. 4 Add some background noise (such as air purifiers for the room), and this decrease in decibels is enough of a reduction to affect the quality of speech for people with some level of hearing loss. 3

Masks also make it impossible to read lips. They muffle sounds, and with more than half of the face covered, it is more difficult to decipher facial expressions. Wearing two masks and a face shield likely affects the quality of speech even more. For patients to be able to make a decision on their treatment based on informed consent and understand all of their treatment options, the ability to hear and understand what we are attempting to communicate is of utmost importance.

Muffled sound through 15 months (and counting) of masked communication may also impact on how we pronounce our words. At Michigan State University Sociolinguistics Lab, a team of researchers have been collecting recorded speech from Michigan residents since the beginning of April 2020 to track changes to language during the pandemic. According to them, the most recent time a major event had such an impact on language was the Second World War, because it brought people together who ordinarily wouldn't have had contact with one another. They would have had to speak louder and clearer during bombing campaigns, for example.

With the pandemic, it's just the opposite. We've been pried apart, and 'you're on mute', 'you broke up a bit there' and 'I can't quite hear you' have become norms for meetings. Research isn't available to date, but anecdotally I would think I've probably changed how I speak - I'm louder, slower and clearer, for masks and for virtual discussions. For someone softly and quietly spoken, they would perhaps have had to adapt more than a public speaker, for example. And yet, as one of the points in Box 1 shows, it can be difficult to speak louder for clarity and retain patient confidentiality. This may well have been improved upon since the beginning of the pandemic, but as restrictions persist and foundation dentists take up posts from next month, it is something many will be encountering for the first time.

The implications

In the last ten years, the biggest change we have seen to communication is that it has become a lot more immediate. Instead of sending emails back and forth from the computer, and waiting for the recipient to be at their desk before they can send a reply, most people now have got access to instant messaging software, which is now becoming integrated into working offices too. When the very first iPhone came out back in 2007, no-one could foresee how smartphones would come to dominate our lives. Our phones are an essential lifeline - they're on the same checklist as keys, wallet and masks when you leave the house. Chances are you're probably reading this on your phone, too, as the number of mobile web users has now outstripped their desktop counterparts. Email does still have its place, but instant messaging apps will soon make them obsolete and a thing of the past at current rates of progress.

' Masks also make it impossible to read lips. They muffle sounds, and with more than half of the face covered, it is more difficult to decipher facial expressions.'

This immediacy means patients have come to expect it too, which is why you wonder if - for a large segment of patients - it should stay. It's one less barrier to getting patients into the practice. Toothbrushes use smart technology to send data back to a patient's dentist. It would perhaps be more cost-effective and enable dental practitioners with targets to achieve them easier. Would it even be a cost-effective bridge for patients to access private dentistry more often and take the pressure off the health service, clearly under pressure? These parameters would apply to a small section of the population, but the implications for a return to 'how things used to be' simply places pressure on a system still essentially operating with peak-pandemic restrictions; it shouldn't happen.

This has also led to another change in precisely how we communicate, namely the length of how we communicate. It wasn't all that long ago that you could expect lengthy emails about even the simplest of topics, Now, though, there's no need to do that when you're communicating with someone in 'real-time'. Conciseness is the order of the day, particularly because that ease of communication means that we often have a lot to keep on top of at once.

And that rings true of most scenarios, except for consent.

Conciseness is not the order of the day. As with consent, and the changes adopted as a result of the Montgomery case, records and consent need to be tailored to the individual patient and therefore being concise will never work in your favour. There is no substitute for good communication, and it is important that what is written in the records actually took place; the patient may argue that there was no such dialogue and no such agreement to proceed on those terms. BDA Indemnity has previously reaffirmed:

'In order to be valid, the consent process needs to be tailored to each patient and their particular circumstances, taking into account what matters most to them. Essentially, this summarises the legal precedent created by the Montgomery case in 2015. Hence your records are the only sure method of demonstrating the consent process which will inevitably evolve over the period you are treating the patient; remembering also that the patient can withdraw their consent at any point.' 5

When providing dental treatment, it is important that every patient fully understands any dental treatment that is proposed in order to make an informed decision about how they would like to proceed. Fully and concise in this scenario do not mix, and it is important to consider the implications of discussing treatment plans with a patient via traditional means and the problems associated with masks, and digital means, particularly if the patient seems like they'd rather be elsewhere.

Conversely, some of the problems that may arise from muffled communication - those with hearing difficulties, those who do not have English as their first language, those living with a disability or other impairment - may reverse the 'instant' nature of communication. Could practitioners be extra cautious about giving patients too much information if there are concerns about misinterpretations or misunderstandings? It's not beyond the realms of possibility, and yet there is still a balance to ensure the patient gets information they can understand and will digest.

True progress, or progress for the sake of it

Sometimes it can feel like technology is being used for the sake of it, and as a result there's no communication, other than with a responsive piece of software. Dentistry must not find itself implementing changes purely for the sake of it - any of the pandemic learnings integrated into everyday practising should be done so for the benefit of the patient and practitioner.

Take receptionists, for example. An integral part of the dental team, yet for some there will be a temptation to make the check-in process digital through touchpads and/or voice-activated programs. Their numbers could potentially dwindle. Besides the fact they're one skillset most at risk from COVID-19 given how many different people they see in a static environment, they're an invaluable asset in any practice. Could a touchpad resolve a query? Yes, most likely. Could a receptionist be able to iron out the beginnings of a complaint? Yes, absolutely. It's those intangible aspects that savings - which many practice owners will naturally seek to find post-pandemic - cannot replace.

' When providing dental treatment, it is important that every patient fully understands any dental treatment that is proposed in order to make an informed decision about how they would like to proceed.'

For dental students, would a hybrid model of learning be something they wish to incorporate? Do they need to be present in lectures as well as clinics? There's an argument for one, but a weaker one for the other.

Do practice meetings need to be in-person when everyone has adopted and integrated technology replacements so ably?

It's easy to say technology - in these scenarios - replaces the need for in-person communication. Truth is they do. The question is should they replace them, to which the answer is anything but straight forward. The 'soft skill' is something many are concerned is lacking in many students and young dentists, given their focus on clinical skills. Researchers have previously concluded that: ' An increase in service industry and competitive private practices emphasises the need for soft skills. Soft skills are used in personal and professional life.

'These soft skills help to organise, plan and manage, and track changes during the course of the growing dental practices. However, understanding of the soft skills in practice management, its simplicity and complex contexts of practice is essential. It is really helpful to all practitioners to grow their practices using soft skills.' 6

Given the shift to instant communication, and in a post-pandemic world where we're actively discouraged from being face-to-face with someone, being able to read the conversation, the flow and the body language, it will be fascinating to see the long-term impact this has on the profession - and wider society - moving forward.

COVID-19 has changed clinical communication practices, of that there is no doubt. The transition from and the balance of face-to-face communication with remote encounters has shifted, even for a profession as reliant upon in-person as dentistry. Which of those changes becomes the norm will only be seen once COVID-19 is in the rear view mirror - for how much longer will masks be mandatory for the entirety of the appointment? For how much longer will practitioners have to speak above air filtration units on top of that? How will this affect those of partial hearing too? How those changes affect the way we communicate will take even longer to gestate - will we all end up speaking slowly and loudly, like Brits abroad do when they want to order something off the menu from behind the counter but have no idea of how to do so in the local language? ◆

Box 1 Tips for masked communication

Dr Jane Merivale, senior dento-legal advisor for BDA Indemnity, has previously suggested the following for communicating wearing a mask2

The environment - Minimise the noise and distractions in the surgery; patients need to understand what is being said and if not hearing fully, especially in the absence of lip-reading cues, they will 'make a guess' at what's been said, particularly patients with a cognitive or hearing impediment

Make eye contact - This conveys 'I see you' activating empathy and connection. Too much and the patient feels uncomfortable, but enough strengthens the greeting and promotes trust

Introductions are key - Wear a name badge so everyone knows 'who's who' and their job title

Explain why you are wearing a mask - This can enhance trust in the dental setting signalling adherence to cross infection control measures given dentistry is carried out at such close quarters

Listen well - Let patients tell their story, uninterrupted

Give reassurance that the patient is safe and acknowledge the extra difficulties imposed by wearing a mask

Check your tone of voice - The tone conveys over 38% of the non-verbal emotional content of what we say. The pace, rhythm and pitch of spoken language is called prosody. Prosody infuses a layer of emotion that goes above and beyond the singular meaning of each word and we are all highly sensitive to variations in tone of voice. In a famous study by Nalini Ambady, audiotapes of surgeons talking with patients were filtered so only the volume, pace and rhythm of their communications were audible. When the tapes were played to a group of volunteers, listeners could determine the surgeons who had a history of complaints and claims

Name your emotion - If the PPE makes it difficult to express it: for example, 'You make me smile' or 'I empathise with you'

Convey openness, warmth and respect with body language - Sit down with patients, turn towards them, and sit at eye level whilst maintaining social distance.

Encourage questions to gauge understanding - In the face of any lack of comprehension that is critical to obtaining valid consent. Information gathered by the dentist may otherwise be incomplete leading to clinical and consent inaccuracies.

Use gestures - Thumbs up or down to clarify what has or hasn't been understood

Give more supplementary written information than usual

Safeguard confidentiality - It can be difficult to speak louder for clarity. You may have to move somewhere more confidential if the situation demands it

Use technology creatively to supplement information given - some dentists are experimenting with live transcript applications compatible with mobile phone technology as a means of communication solving, so the patient can listen again when they've left the surgery.

Rubinelli S, Myers K, Rosenbaum M and Davis D. Implications of the current COVID-19 pandemic for communication in healthcare. Patient Educ Couns 2020; 103: 1067-1069.

Merivale J. 'Masked' communication. BDJ In Pract 2021; 34: 28.

Goldin A, Weinstein B, Shiman N. How do medical masks degrade speech reception? Hearing Review 2020; 27: 8-9.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What noises cause hearing loss? National Center for Environmental Health. Updated October 7, 2019. Available online at: www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html (Accessed August 2021).

Merivale J. Adapting patient consent in response to COVID-19. BDJ In Pract 2021; 33: 26-27.

Dalaya M, Ishaquddin S, Ghadage M, Hatte G. An interesting review on soft skills and dental practice. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: ZE19-ZE21.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

BDJ In Practice, 64 Wimpole Street, W1G 8YS, London, UK

David Westgarth

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Westgarth .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Westgarth, D. Has the pandemic changed the way we communicate?. BDJ In Pract 34 , 14–18 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-021-0845-x

Download citation

Published : 09 August 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-021-0845-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

21st Century Communication Technology Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The changing communication technology and the presence of the internet have greatly impacted the way firms conduct business. It is now possible to conduct business using resources that are virtual in nature while still earning a reasonable revenue of profit and revenue from the operations with minimal investments. The communications technology has dramatically changed the way people in a company interact and communicate with each other for business as well as personal purposes.

The most common forms of technology that have been used over the period of time for communication in a company pertain to face to face communication, memos, letters, bulletin boards as well as financial reports. The selection of type of media is based on the purpose of the communication and the audience being targeted. Face to face communication is personal in nature and an immediate form of communication where a two way flow of ideas is possible.

On the other hand, communication media like bulletin boards and financial reports are drawn up for a certain audience targeting mass reach. In the 21st century however it is now possible to conduct business and communicate with the employees using innovative technologies like email, SMS, video conferencing and hand held devices like PDA’s and BlackBerry (Lengel & Daft, 1988) The use of this technology can also help the company increase two way communication in the management making way for an efficient flow of ideas. Strategic implementation of the media can help in connecting with the lower management and performing any conflict resolution that would otherwise go untreated leading to increase in employee dissatisfaction (‘Whispering Class Must Be Heard’, 2008)

A firm that works on the tax returns for clients needs to communicate with the clients and their staff in an efficient and immediate manner for resolving any issues that may come up during the drawing of papers and the pre[parathion of tax returns. In this regard it is beneficial for the fri9mtomake use of modern communication technology for communicating with their clients and their staff. The firm can make use of SMS to communicate with their staff and inform of any urgent meetings to them.

The SMS option can also be used to inform the clients about any sudden change in plans or to schedule a meeting with them where direct communication at the moment is not possible. Aside from this Email is a option that can be employed to provide the clients with updates in their tax returns and inform of any discrepancies and issues that may come up. The staff can also be delegated work and kept in the work loop using detailed emails with attachments for tax return evidence etc.

The video conferencing option can be used to establish a communication link between the client and the staff working on the tax returns for face to face meetings where a direct face to face meeting is not possible due to geographic or time constraints.

While the modern communication media can be expensive to acquire and use in the firm, it is important to note as well, that its use and implementation can help the firm attain competitive advantage in operations through greater efficiency and increased personal services that it can offer to its customers. The 21st century communication media can be used to strategically motivate and reward the employees where instead of providing them with cash bonus or raise, a BlackBerry or an iPod can be provided. (‘Rewarding a Job Well Done’, 2008) This helps increase the motivation of the employees with returns that are substantial in nature and can be used for business purposes as well.

‘Rewarding a Job Well Done’, LW , 2008.

‘Whispering Class Must Be Heard’, 2008.

Lengel, R.H., Daft, R.L., ‘The Selection of Communication Media as an Executive Skill’, Academy of Management Executive , 1998, 2, no. 3, pp. 225-32.

• Peer Pressure: Issue Review
• Interpersonal Communication Skills and Self-Disclosure
• The Social Implications of the Blackberry Technology
• Blackberry's Organizational Prospects
• SMS Traffic Jam Alert for Drives Across UAE
• Two Friends Who Are Not Speaking to Each Other
• "The Effects of Sexual Harassment on Job Satisfaction" by Laband and Lentz
• Boys and Girls Misunderstandings: Personal Case
• Effects of Laughter on People
• Interpersonal Effectiveness: How to Achieve
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 10). 21st Century Communication Technology. https://ivypanda.com/essays/21st-century-communication-technology/

"21st Century Communication Technology." IvyPanda , 10 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/21st-century-communication-technology/.

IvyPanda . (2021) '21st Century Communication Technology'. 10 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "21st Century Communication Technology." November 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/21st-century-communication-technology/.

1. IvyPanda . "21st Century Communication Technology." November 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/21st-century-communication-technology/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "21st Century Communication Technology." November 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/21st-century-communication-technology/.