The research team compiled studies comparing in-person and technologically mediated conflicts. The latter category includes video calls, phone conversations, voice messages, text messages, email and instant messaging.
Of the 15 studies reviewed, some compared a specific medium, such as texting, to face-to-face interaction, while others covered multiple forms of digital communication.
The overall conclusion is surprising: no one mode of communication is consistently better.
Some studies found no significant difference between face-to-face and digital communication. Others concluded that in-person interactions led to better outcomes, while some found positive effects associated with text messaging.
Strengths and limitations
Daspe considers the mixed results unsurprising, as each mode of communication has its advantages and disadvantages.
“In face-to-face interactions, people pick up on a range of nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, posture, tone of voice, pauses, gestures and even physical contact,” she said. “These factors play a major role in emotional communication. They give you a better sense of the other person’s intentions and let you adjust your responses. Sometimes, you can ease the tension with a simple gesture of affection.”
Conversely, when people use a mode of communication that lacks these cues—such as text messages or email—there is greater ambiguity. A brief message can seem cold. A delayed response can be interpreted as rejection. Without intonation, there’s more room for interpretation.
However, digital communication also has some underappreciated advantages, Daspe noted. For example, it gives people time to think before responding and avoid impulsive reactions. That increased emotional distance can be beneficial.
Circumstantial and individual factors
Daspe therefore believes technology can work in synergy with face-to-face contact.
“A multimodal approach seems better suited to the reality of relationships,” she said. For example, an argument might start with a text message and continue face-to-face. Certain topics may also lend themselves more readily to a particular mode of communication. A logistical issue or a matter with little emotional weight can easily be addressed via text, while more sensitive subjects—involving hurt feelings, trust or big emotional issues—might be better discussed in person.
Daspe added that individual differences should also be considered. Preliminary data suggest that certain personal characteristics influence how conflicts are experienced across different communication methods.
For example, people with a more avoidant attachment style—who are generally less comfortable with emotional closeness—seem more comfortable addressing conflicts by text. Conversely, people with low self-esteem report less satisfaction with using text messaging to resolve conflicts.
Relationship satisfaction also appears to play a role. “Couples who are satisfied with their relationship may place greater value on the emotional richness of face-to-face interaction, which is perceived as fuller and warmer,” Daspe said.
AI: The next challenge
The next phase of this study will look at artificial intelligence, as more people are using chatbots to draft or rephrase sensitive messages, including in romantic relationships.
Can an AI-generated or reworked message come across as clearer and more empathetic? Maybe. But in the context of a romantic relationship, a partner might question the authenticity of the message, resent the perceived lack of effort or feel that a third party is intruding.
Daspe wonders about the possible effects of these tools in the longer term. Could frequent AI use weaken people’s ability to communicate spontaneously with their partner?
