Texting Ain’t Talking

What you don’t see or hear CAN hurt you

Nov 27, 2023

Just the other day I was talking (in person) with a young man in his late teens about a conversation he had with a friend. His recap went something like this. “She said this …” and then “I said that …” to which she said “I’m not sure about that …” I was a little confused about how they had talked because his friend lives in another city. So, I asked when he had talked to her to which he replied, “This was all over text.” What? He was talking about the conversation like they had a real, face-to-face interaction when in reality it was a text message exchange. He treated the two like they were the same! To him, texting is talking. When I asked him why he didn’t just pick up the phone and call her, he gave me a quizzical and condescending look. Sort of like, “That is so old school!” Aspects of this conversation were troubling to me which prompted this week’s post.

woman in black long sleeve shirt covering her face with her hands

At the risk of sounding like an old fogey1, texting is valuable for many uses, but it is not the same as an in-person conversation. From years of discussions with folks comparing texting to talking, it seems that many of us intuitively know that there is a difference, but the difference is tough to explain. With this post I will give you a scientific viewpoint on the difference. It all comes down to how communication between two people happens and the “cues”2 that are involved with the communication.

Communication happens in any number of ways, but eventually it involves the receiving person gaining information from you that they then use to create their understanding. The information can be transferred by words alone (think text or email), through voice inflection (think telephone), visually (think video conference), or in person (think one-on-one meeting). We will refer to these different communication approaches as different “media” and each media will have a different capability for transferring information which we will refer to as “media richness”3.

The more types of information that can be transferred at a given time, the richer the media. A text message contains only words on a screen, so it is not very rich, although emojis have helped here. Texting doesn’t offer vocal inflection, physical reactions, or other cues that are readily available with a much richer face-to-face meeting. Texting offers few cue-paths which is why it is considered a “lean” communication media. Face-to-face, on the other hand, has many cue paths (audible, visual, smell, touch, etc.) which make it a rich media.

So, why should you care? If you use lean media for complex communication, you are inviting misunderstanding. Think of it this way. Assume you are picking a restaurant to meet for a first-time lunch date. You text, “How about EdSan’s Restaurant at noon?” to which your date, after a few minutes, replies “Sure.” All looks good, right? What you don’t know is that your friend just had a bad experience at that same restaurant a few days ago and vowed to never go there again. When she saw your text, her first reaction was one of dismay, which showed up as a facial expression that you cannot see with a text message. You did not get any of that information, and if you had you would have suggested another restaurant. But she, not wanting to be a problem first date, just agreed with a “Sure” reply. From your standpoint this meant all was fine. An additional vocal or visual cue-path would have given you more information when making your restaurant recommendation.

When is it safe to use text messaging?

Texting is great when the messages are easily understood, when there are few alternate interpretations, and between people you know more than casually. Your prior experience together makes texting appear richer because our brains fill in the gaps.

Notice how the restaurant scenario changes when it is between friends who eat lunch together at EdSan’s on a regular basis. Your “Lunch at EdSan’s at Noon today?” text message would be enough for your friend to say “Sure,” and you will have confidence all will be OK. Why? You have done this many times before and it always worked out well. There is no alternate interpretation or reason to expect that this time would be any different from previous lunches.

Know, however, that it is a good idea to remain vigilant for when texting is too lean. Let’s make your lunch with a friend a little more complicated by adding that your friend just got out of the hospital after suffering from a severe food allergy reaction. Notice how your lunch situation is now different. The situation is new for both of you and where you eat could have devastating consequences for your friend. You have no prior experience to draw from with this new information and the risks from a wrong choice are high. Do you see how text message limitations now become a problem? In this case, it would be best to call your friend on the telephone to discuss what does and does not work for him regarding restaurant choices. This way you can have an interactive conversation, hear vocal inflection, and transfer more information in a short period of time, which helps clear up any misunderstandings. After a few lunches, you will get back to a texting routine similar to before, but this will only be after you have resolved the uncertainties around eating and your friend’s health.

When things become risky or uncertain, we tend to increase the media richness to get more clues to help us better understand each other.

The wrinkled brow, rolling of the eyes, exasperated breathing, all tell us something that we would miss over email or text. The more unfamiliar and important a situation is to us, the more we will want these additional cues to help us better understand.

The academic in me has a question about whether this richness escalation tendency applies for the newer generations who were raised far more substantially communicating virtually than in person. My belief is that it may be different due to “neuroplasticity” 4 which is the way in which the brain’s “wiring” determines how we think. We are going to look into this in the coming weeks because it offers an important foundation for understanding how we think, react, and make decisions. Neuroplasticity also programs our unconscious reactions which can cause flawed decision making as well, a topic we have touched on in prior posts. Neuroplasticity is fascinating stuff that you will no doubt find useful and, if you are like me, knowing about it will make you more curious. After all, it is the wiring that determines how we think, which determines everything else. I would call that pretty important stuff!

I am honored that you stopped by and promise to make each post as valuable as possible.

If you liked what you read, then please click the Subscribe Now button below to be notified automatically when something new is posted. Don’t miss out on something that could be helpful to you simply because you forgot to visit my newsletter site. (Subscriptions are free.)

FOR SUBSCRIBERS

BizDoctor's Gazebo

Discussion about this post