Comments on: Communicating Persuasively: Email or Face-to-Face?

By: Victoria

Victoria — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:13:41 +0000

As a student who is studying communications, I can't help but be extremely interested in this study. It seems that individuals living in "modern society" no longer have a need for direct, face-to-face communication. It's too basic, and at the same time it's much too complex. It's difficult to verbalize emotions and thoughts. We cannot make our monologues Hollywood-esque if we're expected to think and express ourselves on the spot. That's while e-mail is easier. Not only that, it also allows us to avoid uncomfortable situations.

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:02:00 +0000

Jo & Ideahold, thanks for your perspectives.

By: ideahold

ideahold — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:04:00 +0000

I have posted about this and its possible implications for the written vs the face-to-face medium at:
http://blog.forcharisma.com

By: Jo

Jo — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:51:00 +0000

I basically prefer to have email communication for several reasons:

1. To have an account of what has been communicated (this helps us to file law suits, when necessary)

2. Do not have to deal with people's emotions in person

3. Address a bunch of people at a time

4. To avoid redundant talk (like How is your dog doing? Hey, did you get a hair cut? blah) when met up with a colleague in person

I like the point - people who are relationship-oriented prefer to have face-to-face conversation AND people who are talk-oriented prefer to have email conversation. This seems to be very true.

But in an organizational setting, having a proof for what has been communicated is mandatory - if things didn't work between you and your organization, for you to proceed legally, you gotta gather all possible email conversations.

I will get my colleagues into writing emails to me when they discuss about work, time-lines, risk mitigation, time sheets etc.

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:04:00 +0000

Anon, you're right - although this isn't what the study is about. Good suggestion for future research though.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:00:00 +0000

Persuasion attempts? Wouldn't the results of this research depend quite a bit on what you're trying to persuade me? If you're inviting me to the next co-ed softball game, you can just email me, and it doesn't mater if I'm male or female, I'll probably show. If you want me to babysit your twins for the next week, you might try that in person, and it may indeed matter whether I'm male or female, single or married, old or young...

http://www.aperiofilms.com/wdlunc.html

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Sun, 20 May 2007 07:50:00 +0000

Pak, the study is not meaningless. Data was gathered on the other conditions but, as I say above, differences were not significant so it's difficult to draw any conclusions.

By: pak

pak — Sun, 20 May 2007 04:16:00 +0000

I agree with the above anonymous conclusion. This study seems meaningless to me... wouldn't you need data on the reverse situations, women with low oneness and men with high oneness for this to mean anything? The situation could be identical for men and women with high oneness and again for men and women with low oneness.

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:34:00 +0000

There were no significant differences in the other conditions. So, technically we can't draw any other conclusions than those the authors mention.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:38:00 +0000

The researchers found that when there were low levels of oneness between men, email was a more effective way to communicate. Conversely, for women, higher levels of oneness made face-to-face encounters significantly more persuasive.

So what about the other two conditions: men with high leves of oneness, and women with low levels of oneness? From what we're told, a simple conclusion "e-mail is better when people have low oneness, face-face is better when they have high" seems valid, never mind the sexes.