Jump to content

User:Maddie06283/Face-to-face interaction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summarizing the importance of face to face interaction (New section of article)

As we view everything that we have talked about so far, concluding that face to face interaction is an important aspect to have is a safe thing to say.


In summary, having that face-to-face communication with someone allows you to communicate and get your point across a lot easier and more straightforward as there wouldn’t be any mixed signals like there would be with texting. Being right in front of the person you are talking to also allows you to see the other persons emotions and body language which is an important aspect that have, if you aren’t able to see their tone or how they are reacting to what you are saying then you could be missing out on crucial signals [1]. With having this face to face interaction, not only doing is it beneficial for those who are wanting a proper conversation and to receive the proper acknowledge from whom you are talking to but it is also crucial for those who are in a culture that may be different than yours. Interacting with someone that comes from a different background could result in miscommunication over text as there could be language barriers, but by being face to face they would be able to express themselves by facial expressions and gestures [2]. Face to face interaction is the key to making long lasting relationships and getting through the barriers that may divide some of us such as by cultural differences and language barriers.


Face-to-face interactions versus social media(New section of article)

Talking to someone face to face gives a person non-verbal cues, such as smiling, swinging limbs, and body positions, that help people communicate. But because social media lacks this kind of face-to-face communication, people have adapted to blind communication when speaking online.[3]

Humans are naturally social animals, and socializing and interacting with others is essential to their survival. With advances in technology, the Internet, instant messaging, and smartphones, many channels and ways to interact with others. However, the human brain has evolved to adapt and keep up with this flood of communication. While face-to-face communication predicted improved quality of life, Internet communication did not. [4]While the Internet opens a new realm of possibilities in connecting with people around the globe, there are inherent factors in online communication at any one time that limit its ability to promote the same level of satisfaction as traditional face-to-face communication. There are many significant differences between online and face-to-face communication, leading to online communication being less emotionally satisfying and fulfilling than face-to-face communication. Reasons include: Online socializing requires time for offline interactions; Online networking requires time for offline interaction; Online interaction can promote passive participation; Nonverbal cues are not easy to distinguish.[5]

Overall, face-to-face interaction promotes higher-quality interactions than online communication. While technology has been able to bring communities and people closer together, humans have a responsibility to cultivate those connections and nurture them through old-fashioned face-to-face communication. As a human species, continuing to connect with others without hiding behind electronic screens is crucial.

Studying face-to-face interaction (Editing existing section of article)

Most research on face-to-face interactions is done by observing interactions; the goal is to explore and explain the regularities in the actions within these observed interactions[6]. The study of face-to-face interaction is concerned with issues such as its organization, rules, and strategy. The concept of face-to-face interaction has been of interest to scholars since at least the early 20th century[7]. One of the earliest social science scholars to analyze this type of interaction was sociologist Georg Simmel; in his eyes, he believed the term "society" was used to represent a number of individuals intertwined by various interactions. In his 1908 book, he observed that sensory organs play an important role in interaction, discussing examples of human behavior such as eye contact[8]. His insights were soon developed by others, including Charles Cooley and George Herbert Mead [9]. Their theories became known as symbolic interactionism; and has since opened the door to a variety and wide range of other theories [10].

Compared with mediated communication (Editing existing section of article)

Face-to-face communication has been however described as less preferable to mediated communication in some situations, particularly where time and geographical distance are an issue. For example, in maintaining a long-distance friendship, face-to-face communication was only the fourth most common way of maintaining ties, after telephone, email, and instant messaging.

What's more, face-to-face communication could easily be interrupted or avoided by just pulling out a cell phone or electronic device. When it comes to communication and understanding one another fully, 93% is non-verbal and/or body language and 7% is written. (Tardanico) According to research studies show that there is an estimated total of over 300 million cell phones users in the United States. (Lopez-Rosenfeld) Owning a cell phone becomes a distraction in everyday life whether if you get a phone call, text message, e-mail, etc. Any alert, in general, is a distraction because of the settings that you can customize.

Despite the advent of many new information and communication technologies, face-to-face interaction is still widespread and popular and has a better performance in many different areas. Nardi and Whittaker (2002) pointed that face-to-face communication is still the golden standard among the mediated technologies based on many theorists, particularly in the context of the media richness theory where face-to-face communication is described as the most efficient and informational one. This is explained because face-to-face communication engages more human senses than mediated communication. Face-to-face interaction is also a useful way for people when they want to win over others based on verbal communication, or when they try to settle disagreements. Besides, it does help a lot for teachers as one effective teaching method. It is also easier to keep a stronger and more active political connection with others by face-to-face interaction.

In the end, there are both pros and cons to each form of communication. Several studies compared the two groups in order to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each. One group was communicating only through face-to-face communication, while the other was communicating only through computer-mediated communication. These studies found that computer-mediated groups perform better than face-to-face groups on idea generation tasks, while face-to-face groups excel in social emotional exchange; this is because face-to-face groups have more tension release and agreement statements, while computer-mediated groups have a tendency of giving more suggestions, opinions, and formal expressions [11]. There is a greater equality of participation in computer-mediated groups, but there's also a higher rate of uninhibited behaviour because computer-mediated groups induce a greater loss of self-awareness [12]. There is generally a reduced sense of social pressure in computer-mediated groups, but there is a stronger perception and sense of understanding in face-to-face groups [13].


Article Draft

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Article body

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Lime Venue Portfolio | Blog | The Power Of Human Connection and Importance of Face-To-Face Interactions". www.limevenueportfolio.com. Retrieved 2022-04-05.
  2. ^ DuPraw, Marcelle E. "Working on Common Cross-cultural Communication Challenges".
  3. ^ "How social media is changing the way people get to know one another | Penn State University". www.psu.edu. Retrieved 2022-04-07.
  4. ^ Lee, Paul S. N.; Leung, Louis; Lo, Venhwei; Xiong, Chengyu; Wu, Tingjun (2011-02). "Internet Communication Versus Face-to-face Interaction in Quality of Life". Social Indicators Research. 100 (3): 375–389. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9618-3. ISSN 0303-8300. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Psychminds (2020-04-13). "Communication: Online vs. Face-to-Face Interactions". Psychminds. Retrieved 2022-04-07.
  6. ^ Key, Mary Ritchie (1980). The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-7637-6.
  7. ^ Kendon, Adam; Harris, Richard M.; Key, Mary Ritchie (1975). Organization of Behavior in Face-to-face Interaction. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-7569-0.
  8. ^ Kendon, Adam; Harris, Richard M.; Key, Mary Ritchie (1975). Organization of Behavior in Face-to-face Interaction. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-7569-0.
  9. ^ Kendon, Adam; Harris, Richard M.; Key, Mary Ritchie (1975). Organization of Behavior in Face-to-face Interaction. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-7569-0.
  10. ^ Demeulenaere, Pierre (2011-03-24). Analytical Sociology and Social Mechanisms. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-49796-1.
  11. ^ Bordia, Prashant (1997-01-01). "Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a synthesis of the experimental literature". The Journal of Business Communication. 34 (1): 99–121.
  12. ^ Bordia, Prashant (1997-01-01). "Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a synthesis of the experimental literature". The Journal of Business Communication. 34 (1): 99–121.
  13. ^ Bordia, Prashant (1997-01-01). "Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a synthesis of the experimental literature". The Journal of Business Communication. 34 (1): 99–121.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Maddie06283/Face-to-face_interaction&oldid=1082702044"