While writing my paper for this post, I likely will edit, erase, correct, and rephrase wording many times in order to produce a paper that says what I want it to say, in proper English grammar, and with the right tone. This is the beauty of having time to write a paper. Now, if we were having a conversation, it is almost a given that something would not be said quite right, using poor grammar, or even contain arguments I wished I would have phrased differently. Given this information, it is fair to say that I would present an idea with better information and emotion if given time to put it in text. I believe the same concept applies to angry emails. For an average angry person, the ability to put an argument into written form allows more passion and emotion to be seen. This is precisely because (as our text states) of the presence of reduced social cues, and the distance allowed in which to compose thoughts into text.
How many times have you thought out a conversation or argument you are about to have? Probably plenty and you probably thought you had every angle to the argument covered. Of course, when we actually have that conversation or argument, it usually doesn’t turn out the way we predicted. This is precisely because we cannot fully forecast what another person is going to think or say. Sometimes the angle they take on a subject completely changes our argument and can leave us scrambling for new arguments. And sometimes the words spoken are exactly what were predicted, but there is an emergence of unanticipated emotion.
For some people, the tone and direction of a conversation or argument may completely change depending on if the person being talked to starts to cry, scream, or produce other strong emotions. The presence of tears or anger can completely change the thought process or reasons of one’s anger. But when there is a lack of this feedback, an angry person who is writing has little check (other than his conscience) to keep his own emotions in line. This can lead to CMC seen as significantly angrier than FtF communication.
Our text cites work by O’Sullivan and Flanagin as the need “to always contextualize online communication and to avoid simplistic explanations for what are otherwise complex social interactions” (Thurlow, pg 69) and in doing so, present a valid point. While we can argue that CMC may allow more anger to be seen, it can only be seen if the receiver interprets text as anger. In the same way we can identify a “failed flame” we can state that if the receiver of an angry email does not interpret it as aggressive, then the argument may not have been any angrier than it would have been if spoken.
Another reason emails can be angrier is because as Raymond A. Friedman describes in his paper “Conflict Escalation: Dispute Exacerbating Elements of E-Mail Communication”, they are hugely antisocial. “E-mails are typically received and written while the writer is in isolation, staring at a computer screen – perhaps for hours at a time, so that awareness of the humanness of the counterpart may be diminished (Friedman, 2004).
A second reason for angry emails is the concept of distance. In this example, “distance” is the time in which to carefully (and emotionally) compose thoughts into text. The idea that people can (theortically) takes as long as they need to compose an email that conveys thoughts, complete with emotions. As Friedman (2004) points out, “greater revisability can enhance escalation in another way as well. Because each party knows that the other has time to revise messages, it is more likely that whatever message gets sent will be perceived as being intended and fully thought-out. It was not an accident, or a slip of the tongue”.
Comparatively speaking though, our authors provide research suggesting that angry messages were more likely to happen when people were under a time pressure (Thurlow, pg 71). I too agree that this can be a factor. Especially now that people can type at closer to the rate of thought than they can write, which allows more emotions to be put into writing, without as much thought about the consequences. And it takes only a split second to “seal the deal” and send that nasty, emotion laden, email.
If you Google “Angry Emails” you get a return of over a million hits. A large number of these hits comprise of sites with information on how to handle creating, or receiving angry email. This suggests that the exchange of angry emails is a problem for many people. One particular site provides tips such as “Cool Down”, “Do your homework”, and “schedule a meeting” which all encourage talking out a problem with someone as opposed to emailing them (www.michaelhyatt.com).
Just as we tend to play by social rules when communicating with people face to face, we should remember those same rules when communicating via text. Every word we say (or write) when eventually experienced by another person will have an effect. Though we may not see that effect immediately, it will do more good if we can always remember it is there.
Friedman, Raymond A. and Currall, Steven C.,Conflict Escalation: Dispute
Exacerbating Elements of E-Mail Communication. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=459429 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.459429
Hyatt, M. (2007). Stop: Don’t Send That Angry Email. Retrieved November 1, 2008,
from http://www.michaelhyatt.com/fromwhereisit/2007/09/stop-dont-sen-1.html.
