Haas News
Table of Contents
A UC Berkeley Haas study forthcoming in Nature Communications finds that disagreement is less contentious and leads to better understanding when discussed by voice or video rather than in writing—even though most people instinctively prefer to hash out conflict over text.
Before you fire off that carefully worded email to a colleague you disagree with, consider this: Your written precision may sabotage a chance at greater understanding.
In a paper forthcoming in Nature Communications, Professor Juliana Schroeder and colleagues from London’s Imperial Business School demonstrated that disagreement is made less contentious and can lead to better understanding when discussed verbally rather than in writing.
Talking out differences runs counter to many people’s instincts. In a survey, the researchers found that writing was preferred by 84% of respondents because they felt it was easier and less likely to lead to conflict.
“People tend to avoid social experiences they think will be off-putting, and that’s part of why they prefer to disagree through writing. But this is one case in which putting in a little effort—by speaking—can really improve the outcome,” says Schroeder, the Harold Furst Chair in Management Philosophy and Values.
Disagreement, Schroeder stresses, is not always a bad thing, as diverse perspectives can lead to better decision-making. Yet disagreement often prompts conflict, causing people to think less of another’s mental capacity. The researchers suspected that in a disagreement, how people communicate can be as important as what they communicate.
They paired people with differing views on controversial topics, including legalizing drugs, slavery reparations, and genetically modified foods. The pairs were then randomly assigned to communicate via video, audio, or text-based chat.
Both video and audio promoted more understanding and less conflict than a text-based chat—increasing understanding by nearly half a point on a 7-point scale and decreasing conflict by a quarter point—effects seen as small to moderate but meaningful. When speaking, people also tended to use more “receptive” language that signaled their openness to opposing views.
Not every email should become a call, Schroeder says. But when the stakes are high, your voice can make all the difference.
A UC Berkeley Haas study by Professor Juliana Schroeder, forthcoming in Nature Communications, found that disagreements are less contentious and lead to greater understanding when discussed verbally—by voice or video—rather than over text. Both audio and video increased understanding and reduced conflict compared with text-based chat.
In a survey, 84% of respondents preferred writing because they felt it was easier and less likely to lead to conflict. But Schroeder’s research suggests this instinct backfires: putting in the extra effort to speak tends to improve the outcome, partly because people use more “receptive” language signaling openness when they talk.
In experiments pairing people with opposing views on controversial topics, speaking increased understanding by nearly half a point on a 7-point scale and decreased conflict by about a quarter point—effects the researchers describe as small to moderate but meaningful. Schroeder notes that not every email needs to become a call, but when the stakes are high, voice can make the difference.
Posted in:
Topics:
Traffic Signals
A UC Berkeley Haas and Stanford GSB study of more than 1,000 major companies finds that website traffic can forecast revenue and stock prices months before earnings—more accurately than traditional metrics alone. Wall Street, the researchers say, is leaving money on the table.
