Cited by 72Attachment and Relationship DynamicsDigital Communication and LanguageImpact of Technology on Adolescents

It's surprisingly nice to hear you: misunderstanding the impact of communication media can lead to suboptimal choices of how to connect with others

Kumar, Amit, Epley, Nicholas·2021·Journal of Experimental Psychology General

Abstract

Positive social connections improve wellbeing. Technology increasingly affords a wide variety of media that people can use to connect with others, but not all media strengthen social connection equally. Optimizing wellbeing, therefore, requires choosing how to connect with others wisely. We predicted that people's preferences for communication media would be at least partly guided by the expected costs and benefits of the interaction-specifically, how awkward or uncomfortable the interaction would be and how connected they would feel to their partner-but that people's expectations would consistently undervalue the overall benefit of more intimate voice-based interactions. We tested this hypothesis by asking participants in a field experiment to reconnect with an old friend either over the phone or e-mail, and by asking laboratory participants to "chat" with a stranger over video, voice, or text-based media. Results indicated that interactions including voice (phone, video chat, and voice chat) created stronger social bonds and no increase in awkwardness, compared with interactions including text (e-mail, text chat), but miscalibrated expectations about awkwardness or connection could lead to suboptimal preferences for text-based media. Misunderstanding the consequences of using different communication media could create preferences for media that do not maximize either one's own or others' wellbeing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0000962

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumar, A., & Epley, N.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology General
Published
2021-03
Volume
150
Issue
3
Pages
595-607
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W3084523253
Cited by
72
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11
FWCI
9.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Chicago
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
communication media choice, social connectedness, voice communication, text-based communication, well-being, interpersonal communication, telephone calls, video chat, email, text messaging
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Choice Behavior, Communication, Emotions, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Voice, Comprehension, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review