Talk it out or type it out?

How to match the channel to the goal when disagreement shows up.

Friends‘ Chandler Bing wanted to break up with his girlfriend, Janice. But he couldn’t bring himself to do it.

So he told her he was being transferred to Yemen.

He thought that it would end there, but of course, it didn’t. Janice offered to help him pack. Chandler made up his new address: 15 Yemen Road, Yemen. Janice insisted on riding with him to the airport. When he tried to bluff his way past the ticket counter, he couldn’t, so he had to buy a real $2,100 ticket. And when Janice announced she wouldn’t leave until she saw the plane lift off, Chandler did the only thing left to do.

He got on the plane. And flew to Yemen.

When Chandler Bing pays $2,100 for a plane ticket and actually boards a flight to the Arabian Peninsula just to avoid breaking up with Janice face to face, we laugh because it’s an absurd way to sidestep a difficult conversation.

We can see that every sidestep creates another complication. Each one offers Chandler a chance to change course, and he keeps choosing the path he’s on. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

Most of us wouldn’t go to Chandler’s extreme lengths. We’d have the conversation.

Just maybe not out loud.

Why we love the keyboard

A recent paper published in Nature Communications found that a whopping 84% of participants preferred text-based communication to verbal communication for handling disagreements.

Study participants expected disagreement done in writing to produce less conflict and more constructive outcomes than spoken exchanges. They anticipated that speaking directly to the other person would be more awkward, take more effort, and feel more uncomfortable.

Disagreement by keyboard is more appealing because we believe it will serve us better.

Of course, it makes sense that disagreeing by keyboard lets us deliberate more carefully and craft more perfect arguments. We draft, we edit, we find the right words before anyone can react to the wrong ones.

And we can understand the desire to avoid directly witnessing someone else’s pain or anger in person. And of their not bearing witness to ours. We can be Chandler, minus the cost of a trip to Yemen.

But…should we be Chandler?

The case for voice

A body of research over the past decades has found that, when it comes to conflict and resolution, talking is better suited than writing for the task of navigating disagreement than writing in our work and home relationships.

Recent research reported in Nature Communications found that speaking led to greater understanding, lower conflict, more favorable impressions, and greater attitude alignment than writing.

Why? We tend to infer someone’s mental state more accurately and have a better impression of their capacities when we hear rather than read the same words. Tone, cadence, and backchanneling behaviors help us come across more clearly.

The spoken word seems to humanize the speaker and make them seem more thoughtful, competent, and rational. Speaking also seems to prompt language that signals we’re open to an opposing view. Written communication during disagreement tends to omit those cues.

The case for text

Yet, there are instances when fighting by email, Slack, or other technology-mediated communication (TMC) channel helps more than hurts.

Though the research on the advantages of digital channels is still limited, a recent literature review in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships concluded that text seems to do better mainly when it gives people something a spoken conversation does not: time delay. This is important in two specific scenarios:

When anger is intense, “rich” communication channels (like voice or video) can actually amplify anger. Writing, though, can work like a circuit breaker, putting space between the feeling and the reply.

Face-to-face conflict can overload anyone when it’s hot or fast-paced. For neurodivergent adults especially, it can swamp the space needed to think clearly. Reading and writing at our own pace takes some of that load off — no face to decode, no tone to track.

Choosing the right channel

The way to choose the best channel is to match the channel to the goal. Use these guidelines to choose the optimal channel for your circumstances:

When the goal is to increase understanding and preserve rapport, rich channels like face-to-face, phone, and Zoom are better choices because they convey tone, cadence, and other valuable nonverbal cues.

When the goal is to repair hurt feelings or work through trust issues, face-to-face is usually favored because it supports emotional nuances and greater attitude adjustment.

When the goal is to reduce emotional arousal, technology-mediated channels can help because they create cognitive distance and offer more time to think. These channels don’t need to replace taking a break from the spoken conversation, though.

When the goal is to work out a low-stakes or logistical issue, keyboard tends to be as effective as voice.

For those who work in virtual teams, one study found that live interaction via video (like Zoom) preserves valuable visual and vocal cues while lowering emotional arousal, suggesting that this channel is effective for conflict resolution.

Treat asynchronous channels as tools for pausing high-conflict disagreements, not for settling them.

When the goal is to help employees choose which medium to use for which kind of conflict, offer guidelines in advance and don’t assume everyone naturally knows how to handle conflict across the various channels.

Of course, your goals won’t always line up with these guidelines. Maybe you want to preserve rapport and lower the heat. When two goals suggest different channels, start with the channel that addresses the one you can’t afford to miss.

Then switch to the other one when you’ll be served better by it: “I’ve been thinking about our text exchange yesterday and I think it’s time to talk in person now rather than trade more messages. Do you have some time this afternoon?”

There’s also one last self-check to consider when you opt for keyboard: Am I choosing a digital channel to serve the conversation, or to spare myself?

We’re not likely to end up on a plane to Yemen like Chandler did. But we may keep typing when it’s time to talk, or talking when it’s time to step back. Switching channels is free, which is $2,100 better than Chandler managed.

Over to you

• Do you have a habitual channel when disagreement shows up? Why do you default to that one?

• Have you recently had a disagreement you handled by keyboard? Did it serve the conversation (and relationship)? How so or how not?

• Have you recently stuck with a channel even when it wasn’t helping? What made it hard to switch?

• Some people choose text because they don’t feel they have the skills to work things out in person. If you are one of those people, what would you want to get better at in order to choose the voice channel more often? How might you do that?