Stop. Before you call me, before you pick up that phone and before you start dialing that number, consider what you're doing, and more importantly, consider what you could be doing instead.
After all, wouldn't you rather text me? Avoid the possibility of my rejection, avoid embarrassing me in class, and avoid the nuisances that are sometimes caused by the calling someone? Wouldn't it be just as easy to dial a text, write an e-mail, or post something to me?
The psychology of text messaging is far from new. In fact, as long as we've been recording history, humanity has interacted via text communication. However, the advent of new technologies, mainly the Internet, has caused this communication to erupt into something that borders somewhat on the surreal. Indeed, the psychology of text messaging has entered into a new era.
With text, we can maintain constant communication with our peers while simultaneously keeping our distance.
I'd be willing to bet that no one reading this article can honestly say that they've never sent a text while in class or at work where the trouble of a phone call is all too obvious and impossible.
Accessibility extends far greater than multitasking while sending the occasional text however. Text can be used to contact multiple groups of people, to find and organize trips and seems to minimize the feeling of rejection when a response is not received. But mainly, text can be used for literal conversations, even to the point where people are satisfied simply with the text.
A severe criticism of text communication is that the lack of psychological person-to-person involved. But contrary to that notion, communication between texts can actually lead to healthy relationships between parties. In fact, according to J.R. Suler in his work "The Psychology of Text Relationship," humans, especially after prolonged communication via text (over many different periods) begin to develop deep physiological connections, even to the point where transference of the sender's actual words and mannerisms appear to the reader. The quality may rely on related writing styles, but, according to Suler, over time, healthy relationships develop when both sender and receiver manipulate their own message so that the other may perceive the text in a more accepting manner.
Beyond that criticism, perhaps the greatest criticism of text communication is the manner in which shorthand writing styles have the potential of harming verbal communication and the general intellect of humanity. Will "OMG" replace "oh my God" as some suggest? And if so, what does this mean for a society that speaks in shorthand?
The most important factor one must realize is that it's impossible for me to argue that text communication hasn't changed the way in which we verbalize information. It's absolutely true. What was once considered "proper" has been replaced by a series of abbreviations. But I argue here that to understand the shorthand, you must first understand what it stands for.
If texters are cognizant of the background and ancestry of the syntax, then how can they possibly neglect its actual meaning? Indeed, this language is not proper, but proper is an ideal created by humanity itself. Proper is an ideal that has changed and evolved with the language. Read the Constitution and tell me what proper is. While a series of abbreviations and shorthand shouldn't be the goal, the argument that text results in the dumbing down of society has no scientific groundwork.
So before you call me, before you even think about picking up that phone and dialing my number, consider your options. After all, wouldn't you rather text me?
Yes, Josh is accepting your texts and all, but his editors still require he accepts your e-mail. Send one to: joshua.spivack@asu.edu.
