By: Renee Schroeder, Edited by: Jack Tucker

“Can we talk about this in person?” This is a question that I’ve typed many times.

Throughout middle school, high school, and now even college, I’ve tried my best to handle arguments over text countless times. Even when I’ve replied by asking to talk in person, arguments seem to always continue through phones. It’s no secret that texting can lead to misunderstandings and though many might agree that it’s better to handle conflict in person, there are some instances in which texting might not be as detrimental as you’d expect.

I’ve often found myself exasperated over misunderstandings, wondering why someone didn’t use an emoji or seemed angry over text. However, when my friends and I talk in person, the interactions are very different. While some studies suggest that we are more likely to look for a compromise in a face-to-face conflict, other studies have shown that conflict through text might not be that bad. Is one channel really better than the other? Do we truly argue differently over text?

A 2012 study by Andrea Meluch from Kent State University and Heather Walter from the University of Akron found that people are more likely to use a collaborative or compromising conflict style in an in-person interaction than over text. In the study, “Conflict Management Styles and Argumentativeness: Examining the Differences Between Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication,” the researchers studied college students’ conflict management styles and argumentativeness through self-assessment questionnaires that placed them in a computer-mediated or face-to-face situation. While people were more likely to use compromising and collaborative styles in person, other styles, such as controlling and non-confrontational, were not impacted by which channel was used.

In other words, those who tend to be controlling or non-confrontational during conflicts act that way regardless of which channel they use. While the channel you communicate through does affect conflict, it may not be as important as you’d think. People who are aggressive in conflict over text will likely be aggressive in person as well. In this case, approaching your arguments in person would not necessarily be better or worse than over text.

While many people might agree that face-to-face communication is usually best, there’s another example of when it may not be more beneficial. Renee Edwards, a communications researcher at Louisiana State University, and her colleagues conducted a study titled “That’s Not What I Meant: How Misunderstanding Is Related to Channel and Perspective-Taking.”

Edwards and her colleagues gave college students questionnaires about misunderstandings in their face-to-face and computer-mediated interactions, and participants described the severity of these misunderstandings in context.

The results were surprising. Those in face-to-face interactions reported their misunderstandings as being more serious than those in the computer-mediated condition. This means that while we believe that we have more misunderstandings over text because of the lack of nonverbal communication, the misunderstandings we have in person are more detrimental.

Having no nonverbal communication like tone or body language over text makes it significantly more difficult to understand someone completely. There are bound to be many misunderstandings, but it seems that this ambiguity might also allow us to be more forgiving with each other through our phones. Edwards suggested that we may be more likely to brush aside our misunderstandings by giving the other person the benefit of the doubt because of this lack of nonverbal communication. Edwards also says that “text-based messages provide interlocutors with more opportunity for editing and reevaluating these messages.” If you’re arguing in person, you don’t have as much time to calculate what you’re going to say as you do over text. Another reason could be that the conflicts handled over text are often less complex than those that come up in-person.

Though we may argue over text, it is likely that the arguing is often not as damaging as the arguments we have in person. However, Meluch and Walter’s study would suggest that when arguing in-person, we are still more likely to use the collaborating and compromising styles. Arguing over text can often be frustrating, but there are benefits to both methods of communication when utilized correctly.

What does this mean for handling your conflict going forward? Is one channel really better than the other? While conflict through both channels has its challenges, there are benefits to both channels of communication. The best way to handle your conflict is to be intentional with the channel you you use and consider the consider the context of each individual conversation. Some smaller situations may be better over text with the ability to pause and edit what you’re going say. Face-to-face conversations can lead to more compromising. Either way, research like this reminds us all to be careful and intentional with how we handle our conflicts and how we communicate when we need to the most.