A Pandemic’s Way of Communicating: Is Over-The-Phone Communication Causing Anxiety?

With the current pandemic taking over the lives of millions, countless individuals have been required to avoid face-to-face communication and sustain from large groups of people. This has encouraged the younger demographic to discover new ways of communicating while still abiding by the enforced restrictions, our cell phone being one of those resources. With access to social media outlets and quick messaging, people can be reached with the click of a button. While this may be beneficial for many, others fear the extra effort it takes to understand another individual’s intentions due to a lack of nonverbal cues. In an article written by The Cut, writer Cari Romm discusses the anxiety certain cell phone users develop during tasks as simple as calling in a doctor’s appointment. She admits that words are only a small portion of getting a message across successfully, and that lack of facial expressions and body language can raise the concern of misinterpreting information. This mainly occurs during phone calls and FaceTime communication, while texting and DM-ing is known for being less stressful. Although a typed message is also stripped from any nonverbal communication, it allows the messenger to think about their text and edit it for clearer understanding.

This need for nonverbal communication may not appeal to everyone but can intertwine with other communication preferences, leading to a better understanding. The fondness between face-to-face communication and over the phone discussions shows how the slightest adjustment can affect one’s outlook on another individual. This comparison is similar to Griffin’s discussing the differences between an objective approach and an interpretive approach. To distinguish the two, he argues that with an objective approach, “it’s not arguments that persuaded people as much as i is memories of personal experience triggered by the message” (Griffin 12). He categorizes this as having one reality. Interpretive, however, attracts a rhetorical critic audience rather than a social scientist. He states “the use of archetypes. . . touches off ‘depth responses’ that emotionally resonate at the core of our being” (14). With more of a free will outlook, the interpretive approach has multiple realities rather than just one. To understand the nature of knowledge, Griffin introduces epistemology, admitting that “we all inevitably make assumptions about the nature of knowledge” (16).

So how does nonverbal communication fall into Griffin’s report on these different approaches? One important discovery is how these unspoken cues can help an individual determine what is going on during an interaction they are observing. For example, when observing two students having a conversation, you may be able to pick up on certain nonverbal cues to get a clearer indication of what is being said. If their arms are crossed and there is a lack of facial expressions, the person may feel uncomfortable or stuck in a controversial conversation. This assumption falls under an interpretive approach because another individual could be witnessing the same interaction and assume the person is just tired or uninterested in the discussion. Furthermore, Griffin goes more in-depth regarding the objective form of epistemology, which is defined as behavior caused by heredity and environment. This ties in with Romm’s argument regarding the anxiety that comes with over the phone communication. Due to the inability to meet face to face and pick up on nonverbal cues, many phone users can feel overwhelmed and not themselves. Their verbal behaviors can be affected, and certain factors such as the tone of voice can change the attitude of the individual on the receiving end of the conversation. While Griffin doesn’t discuss nonverbal cues directly in his discovery, it playa a major role in distinguishing the various forms of approach.

 

https://www.thecut.com/article/psychologists-explain-your-phone-anxiety.html