How and When to Use Your Mobile Phone

Most evolution scientists assert that human language began 200,000 to 300,000 years ago and they use speech development as a defining feature, if not the defining feature of homo sapiens. People, of course, could communicate via body language and physical signaling of various kinds at some undefined period, as well.  And pictorial communication, such as by cave paintings, are conventionally dated to about 30,000 years ago. 

Before 1844, real time talk required real time physical, in-person interaction.  That meant that people were consciously or unconsciously perceiving not only the literal content of their verbalizations but also their body language and prosody (vocal pitch, length of sounds, loudness, and timber [quality of the voice]).  Ancient wisdom acknowledges the importance of body language and prosody as expressed in the advice, “It’s not what you say but how you say it.”

Not until the invention of the telegraph approximately in 1844 could people could do anything close to real-time “talking.”  We all now are acutely aware of and preoccupied with our ability to talk to almost anyone on earth at virtually any time.  Progress?  Yes and no.

The contemporary telephone that provides real-time vocal conversation also makes texting possible as an alternative to vocal talk.  We all know the misunderstandings that can arise when texting.  When texting, there obviously is no way to confidently perceive the body language or prosody that face-to-face conversation enables, especially critical communication nuances, such as facetiousness or sarcasm.

Whether used for vocal talk or texting, however, the mobile phone has profoundly changed the dynamics of human communication.  Each contact attempt invites the sender and the target to evaluate the quality of their relationship according to the frequency and rapidity of sending and receiving.  Both communicators commonly presume that the message has been delivered and that their counterpart virtually has total control over deciding the next step.  Thus, as expected, Emma M. Templeton and associates (2022) found that people who received faster responses regarded themselves as “more connected” to their response partner than did those with slower responses.  Also, unsurprisingly, people who response prized quick responses from their response partner did not necessarily believe that their own speed was as important.  One might infer that such people were operating according to the “fundamental attribution error” (Miller, J. G., 1984), finding reasonable external excuses for their own delayed responses but believing that the speed of others’ responses were determined by enduring personality characteristics of those others.  It is worth mentioning, too, the Templeton group’s belief that extremely short response times, such as those less than 250 milliseconds, are made without conscious control and thus are considered to be an honest signal as to how well and easily two people relate to one another.

Consider the “texted” information that I presented within this blog when you are deciding how and when to communicate, particularly when interpersonal and/or other adaptive issues are important to you.

References:

Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 961–978.

Templeton, E. M., et al. (2022).  Fast response times signal social connection in conversation. 

PNAS January 25. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116915119.