Abstract
This article pulls together diverse published findings on computer-mediated communication (CMC) to test the hypothesis that it reduces psychological engagement and impact compared with face-to-face (FTF) interactions. Although gaps and questions remain, the evidence mostly confirms reduced engagement and impact. Compared with FTF interactions, CMC elicits less positive emotion, with mixed results for negative emotions. Physiological arousal is often lower. Relationships, trust, and group cohesion develop more slowly (although perhaps eventually reaching the same levels). Information processing is reduced. Inhibitions are also reduced, leading to greater willingness to criticize, to bring up alternate perspectives and suggestions, and to neglect to respond. The disinhibition may improve participation by shy persons. Group performance and group decision-making are often impaired, although some studies found no difference. Teaching and learning go less well. Impact and engagement lose more with asynchronous than synchronous CMC. FTF interactions boost well-being compared with not interacting, but CMC is in between. When CMC augments FTF relationships, there may be benefits, but when it replaces them, there are psychological costs. Technology has enabled marvelous advances in long-distance communication, but there is still no fully satisfactory substitute for actually being together in person.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
