Sample Psychology Essays on Online Social Interactions vs Face-to-face Interactions

Can online social interactions be more beneficial than face-to-face interaction for those with social disorders?

Position Summary

The use of online interactions has been catapulted by the introduction of social networking sites (SNSs). The latter have become part of modern communication and play a fundamental role in communication processes that are within and are about interpersonal relationships. Learning institutions have also embraced SNSs in a bid to enhance the interaction as well as the understanding level of the learners. Though SNSs, there has been an enhancement of the ability to connect with one another (AFox & Moreland, 2015). In addition, communication has been made easier, and the achievement of this objective is owed to the sites that have enabled people to post and share social functions, distribute and store information, as well as provide feedback to others using the sites. Despite the numerous advantages and benefits of online interactions, face-to-face interactions remain preferable for those with social disorders. It should be noted that online interactions, which take place through social sites such as Facebook introduce individuals to inappropriate or annoying content, and this is not only detrimental to those with social disorders but everyone using the sites (AFox & Moreland, 2015).

As mentioned, online interactions leverage on SNSs such as Facebook. However, continuous online interaction results in a person being tethered to SNSs such as Facebook, and this means that there is social pressure that pushes an individual to connect with other users no matter the time or place (Rocco, 1998). The social pressure resulting from online interaction is seen to result in dissatisfaction and guilt, aspects that are not experienced when people engage in face-to-face interactions. Facebook and other social sites, through which online interactions take place, result in privacy frustrations, as well as perceptions of lack of control, and thus, face-to-face interactions are preferable, particularly for persons with social disorders (AFox & Moreland, 2015).   The fact that online interactions through SNSs such as Facebook result in an endurance of social comparison and jealousy cannot be ignored. Put simply, SNSs that facilitate online interactions result in unnecessary competition among people, and this is unacceptable for people with social disorders. That is to say, face-to-face interaction is preferable and more beneficial than online interaction because it does not result in unnecessary social competition. Another weakness of social interactions is that they often result in relationship conflicts and deterioration. This is because interactions, which take place offline, may be carried onto online platforms and vice versa. On the other hand, relationship conflicts and deterioration hardly occur in face-to-face interactions, and thus the latter is beneficial for those with social disorders (AFox & Moreland, 2015).

Moreover, it should be noted that face-to-face interaction is more beneficial than online interaction because it results in the satisfaction of social needs as well as positive mood (Sacco & Ismail, 2014). Satisfaction of social needs is one of the primary objective of every person, and thus the significance of the interaction is underscored. It is argued that despite the positives accompanying the use of social network sites for social interaction, there are myriads of limitations of the same. For instance, in online interactions, the inability or the incapability of transmitting interaction features that to a large extent define face-to-face interactions is evident (Sacco & Ismail, 2014). Agreeably, face-to-face interaction is more beneficial than online interaction particularly for persons with social disorders, and there are various reasons behind this. One of the reasons is that face-to-face interaction is seen to involve persons who are close, and who can hear or see one another, and these are indicators of acceptance and social warmth. In addition, unlike online interactions, face-to-face interactions exhibit a high degree of synchronicity, and this influences quick interaction among people resulting in the facilitation of interactional fluency (Sacco & Ismail, 2014). The augmentation of social communication, which occurs during face-to-face communication, is owed to the availability of facial expressions, and this leads to the conclusion that FTF interaction is more beneficial than online interaction. It is also notable that in FTF interactions, there is the availability of body language, which is a key component of a successful and effective communication. There is an argument that effective speakers use body movements, gestures, and facial expressions while delivering a speech to an audience. The implication is that effective communication occurs during FTF interaction making it more beneficial than online interactions.

Furthermore, trust, which is a key aspect during communication, is seen to succeed only with face-face communication, and this means that there is a lack of trust in almost all incidences of online interaction (Rocco, 1998). The reluctance towards the use of communication technologies when trust is a prerequisite in various collaborative tasks is only overcome by an engagement or involvement in face-to-face interaction. The need to establish trust during communications means that FTF interactions remain more beneficial than online interactions, although there is a possibility that the latter could be designed in a manner that could see the inclusion of various features in a bid to establish trust.(Rocco, 1998). It is important that effective communication should involve cheap coordination, as this is one of the key factors that facilitate the cooperation of persons involved in a communication process. A mention of cheap coordination gives reference to various mechanisms such as leadership as well as division of labor.  Without a doubt, these mechanisms only occur in face-to-face settings, and this means that unlike online interactions, face-to-face interactions exhibit cooperation, and thus, are beneficial particularly for people with social disorders. Irrefutably, intelligible communication, which involves turn taking, only occurs in FTF communication, and thus the fact that FTF interaction is more beneficial than online interaction is underscored.

Response to class

Can online communication create confidence for better face-to-face interactions?

It should be noted that online communication leverages on social network sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, and through these platforms, there is a possibility that a person’s confidence can be boosted, and this could result in the betterment of face-to-face interactions. Learning institutions worldwide have embraced the use of online social platforms, and this has not only promoted the understanding levels of the learners but also their ability to communicate with one another. Apparently, other than the negatives accompanying the use of SNSs discussed above, there are myriads of positives that accompany the same. First, the use of Facebook and other online platforms for communication brings social capital, and this is the benefits that a person receives from another when interacting through online platforms (AFox & Moreland, 2015). Social capital obtained through online interactions or communication boosts a person’s confidence, and this paves the way for better face-to-face interactions. Second, the leverage on social platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, and others, affords one the ability or capability of strengthening ties that could be considered as weak. It also plays a fundamental role in the maintenance of existing relationships as well as the definition of ambiguous relationships. Essentially, through the maintenance of existing relationships and the definition of ambiguous relationships, online interactions are seen to boost the confidence of individuals, and this paves the way for better face-to-face interactions and communications.

Moreover, the connectivity that occurs through online interactional platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and others, results in the promotion of group identity as well as in-group relationships, and this is particularly for users hailing from gender identity, ethnoracial, and sexual orientation minority groups. That is to say, users in the mentioned minority groups have their confidence boosted through the promotion of group identity. In the end, such users have an easy time engaging in face-to-face interactions because their confidence is boosted (AFox & Moreland, 2015). Most importantly, the continuous use of online social platforms boosts individuals’ self-esteem, and this, results in the creation of confidence, which leads to better face-to-face interactions. It should also be noted that online interaction through platforms such as Facebook and Twitter enhance the interactional experience of the users, and as a result, confidence is created. A perfect example of an online social platform that enhances interactional experience is Skype (AFox & Moreland, 2015). Although there are numerous cues that are not available when Skype is used, it plays a crucial role in the enhancement of the interactional experience as well as confidence of users. When using Skype, the users see and hear one another only that there are cues such as body movements that cannot be employed during communication. With the two aspects, there is no doubt that better face-to-face interactions will take place. It should also be noted that through online interaction, there is a satisfaction of basic social needs as well as the development of positive mood. With these two aspects, there is no doubt that the confidence of an individual will be boosted, and this paves way for better face-to-face interactions (AFox & Moreland, 2015).

Do you think different forms of social media (e.g., Twitter and Instagram) would produce the same results as current studies?

Current studies leverage on traditional approaches such as face-to-face interaction, which result in intelligible communication, coordination, as well as the early establishment of social norms that shape cooperative attitudes. The integration of different forms of social media such as Twitter and Instagram would produce better results than the current studies. Arguably, the use of social media results in the boost of interaction experience, and this means that the users of the platforms are in a position to interact with sexes that they were unfamiliar with previously (AFox & Moreland, 2015).Irrefutably, the enhancement of interactional experience would result in the production of better results than those produced in the current studies. It is also agreeable that the use of social media platforms results in the satisfaction of basic social needs and the development of positive mood. These two aspects would influence the participation and boost the confidence of users, and thus, better results would be produced.

Can online communications provide more opportunity for deceit?

As mentioned earlier, trust is one of the key elements of the communication process. However, trust is only available in face-to-face interactions, and this means that the lack of trust in online interactions or communications is irrefutable (Rocco, 1998). Simply put, in contrast to face-to-face interactions, online communication is seen to provide more opportunity for deceit, and this is one of its weaknesses. Another limitation of online communication or interaction is its inability or incapability to transmit broad interaction features as seen or defined in face-to-face interactions. This means that through the use of online communication, nonverbal cues and turn taking, which are key elements or indicators of a successful or effective communication process, are unavailable. It should be noted that the unavailability of nonverbal cues and other elements such as turn taking during online communication, which result in the effectiveness of a communication process, provides more opportunity for deceit. This is because the message being communicated may overlook the mentioned cues resulting in the opportunity of deceit. This is an insinuation that deception is easier in online communication than in face-to-face communication (AFox & Moreland, 2015). Irrefutably, in online communications, particularly through sending of mails, there is no proximity between the users, and this means they cannot see or hear one another, and thus the indicators of effective communication such as acceptance and social warmth are unavailable. The inability to see or hear one another as in the case of face-to-face communications means that online communications provide more opportunity for deceit.

Can online communications impede performance at job interviews?

For a long time, the negative effects of online communication are some of the factors that impede performance particularly at job interviews. The effectiveness of online communication depends on the cues used, and these in turn play a fundamental role in the improvement of performance. In as much as the modern world is fast shifting from face-to-face interactions to online interactions, the negative effects of the later still remain evident, and if not addressed, the activities or operations of humans in the modern society could be in jeopardy. Online communications or interactions can impede performance at job interviews and job-related activities in various ways. First, online communications and interactions could result in a person spending more time on social network sites, and this could lower the quality of life, which could impede performance at job interviews (AFox & Moreland, 2015). Second, online communication through the continuous use of SNSs such as Facebook causes a reduction of self-esteem, feelings of distress, as well as cognitive interference and overload (AFox & Moreland, 2015). These could result in the impediment of performance at job interviews. It should also be noted that online communication and interaction prompts the continuous use of SNSs resulting in a significant decrease in well-being, which may be extended to job interviews, causing an impediment of performance (AFox & Moreland, 2015). It is also a common experience that continuous use of SNSs makes one tethered to the sites, and this causes distraction at job interviews impeding performance. The frustrations that result from the use of SNSs could be transferred to job interviews, and this could impede performance. (AFox & Moreland, 2015). There are several cases and incidences where the poor performance of organizations is attributed to the time spent by the employees in social network sites. Continuous use and access of SNSs also results in organizational unproductivity, and this is one of the challenges faced by organizations in the modern world (AFox & Moreland, 2015).

Overall Summary

From the above responses, it can be concluded that on one hand, online social communication and interactions are more beneficial than face-to-face interactions while on the other hand, face-to-face interactions are more beneficial than online social interactions. The fact that online social interactions are more beneficial than face-to-face interactions is because the former results in the creation of confidence for better face-to-face interactions (AFox & Moreland, 2015). This is evident in the use of Facebook and other online platforms for communication, which brings social capital, and this is the benefits that a person receives from another when interacting through online platforms. Social capital obtained through online interactions or communication boosts a person’s confidence, and this paves the way for better face-to-face interactions (AFox & Moreland, 2015). In addition, the advantage on social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter affords one the ability or capability of strengthening weak ties. It also plays a fundamental role in the maintenance of existing relationships as well as the definition of ambiguous relationships creating confidence that facilitates better face-to-face interactions (AFox & Moreland, 2015). From the above responses, online social interactions can be more beneficial than face-to-face interactions because their integration in studies would result in the production of better results than those produced by current studies that leverage on face-to-face interactions. Another conclusion based on the above responses is that face-to-face interactions are more beneficial than online social interactions. This is owed to the fact that online social interactions provide more opportunity for deceit, an aspect that is unacceptable in effective and successful communication. The opportunity for deceit is tempered by the lack of trust is only available in face-to-face interactions (Rocco, 1998). The opportunity for deceit is also because of the inability or incapability to transmit broad interaction features as seen or defined in face-to-face interactions. This means that through the use of online communication, nonverbal cues and turn taking, which are key elements or indicators of a successful or effective communication process, are unavailable.

The argument that face-to-face interactions are more beneficial than online social interactions is also because of the possibility that online communications can impede performance at job interviews. This is because online communications and interactions could result in a person spending more time on social network sites, and this could lower the quality of life (AFox & Moreland, 2015), which could impede performance at job interviews. Besides, online communication through the continuous use of SNSs such as Facebook causes a reduction of self-esteem, feelings of distress, as well as cognitive interference and overload. These could result in the impediment of performance at job interviews. It should also be noted that online communication and interaction prompts the continuous use of SNSs resulting in a significant decrease in well-being (AFox & Moreland, 2015), which may be extended to job interviews, causing an impediment of performance. Future research should take into consideration the benefits of both online social interaction and face-to-face interactions to help in the resolution of the debate.

 

 

References

Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168-176.

Rocco, E. (1998, January). Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some initial face-to-face contact. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 496-502). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co..

Sacco, D. F., & Ismail, M. M. (2014). Social belongingness satisfaction as a function of interaction medium: Face-to-face interactions facilitate greater social belonging and interaction enjoyment compared to instant messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 359-364