The days of communicating only by mail and waiting weeks or months for a response are long gone. While we may still receive some items by postal service, these are much less frequent and generally much less exciting.
Texting has become the current and often most frequent personal communication of choice.
British software engineer Neil Papworth sent the first text message in 1992, but texting didn’t become widely popular until about 2000. And in 2007, the text message volume officially surpassed phone call volume in the United States.
Email became more popular globally in the mid-1990s and remains a widespread means of communication, but texting surpasses email as the preferred means for quick, day-to-day personal exchanges.
Texting has many advantages, including the ease, simplicity, and accessibility of keeping people more connected. But texting can also create difficulties, especially around relationship assumptions.
In my work as a therapist (and as a person living in this modern world), I have noticed and like to name two domains where trouble with texting seems to most often arise: illusions of immediacy and delusional-like distortions.
Illusions of Immediacy
We know that most people have their phones on them or with them often around the clock; however, this does not mean everyone is immediately available or instantly able to respond.
Every person naturally has different schedules, routines, and processing styles. While some comments or questions in the context of an upcoming meeting might be expected to be addressed promptly (such as “Where are we meeting for lunch?”), the more complex statements or queries often need more time or consideration (such as “I am concerned about what you said last night”).
Although most people check texts more often and more quickly than emails, the assumption that someone has read another’s text and can respond immediately is not reasonable in all contexts. Someone may also have seen a message but not been ready to respond for a multitude of reasons.
This illusion of immediacy can be a significant source of angst and aggravation. We humans often jump to conclusions if we don’t get a response as immediately as expected, and we can sometimes create stories in our minds about why there might be a delay (such as “She hasn’t responded; she must be angry with me” or “He probably doesn’t care that I am hurt”).
A lack of something or the delay of response is not the full story. Receivers often interpret a missing or delayed response from the sender with much greater meaning than is typically warranted, especially if the receiver is feeling more on edge or has set some internalized expectations. And because humans have a negativity bias, pessimistic suppositions are often made.
Part of why this happens in texting can be because there might often be a rapid back-and-forth that happens between two individuals, but then there is a shift in the response rate. Having had most of the exchanges be more instantaneous one hour does not mean that immediacy is always available or even appropriate in the following hour. This can be confusing or jarring, but this needs more consideration of the context (“They might be having a busy day”) rather than assuming a character flaw (“They are so self-centered”).
Pausing until we have the particulars, slowing down the stories, and finding out the facts are all highly recommended.
Delusional-like Distortions
The other interpersonal difficulty that arises can occur when someone receives a somewhat brief, cryptic, or unexpected text response and makes assumptions about the sender’s intention.
Guesses and conjectures are made, sometimes of significant magnitude, and they can be delusion-like distortions or major misconceptions. A simple text response of “OK” might be interpreted as “They are mad” or “She doesn’t really want to do that.” The receiver, expecting questions or sympathy in response to sharing important information, might instead interpret a simple encouraging sentiment as “They don’t want to talk about this” or “He doesn’t understand what a big deal this is to me.”
Relationships Essential Reads
By adding an interpretation based on our assumptions, we are inserting something into the situation without having all the data. Jumping to a conclusion without complete knowledge or understanding of the sender’s intent can lead to negative spirals, especially if the receiver is feeling more vulnerable or sensitive about the information being referenced.
This is more likely to happen in texting because a large portion of communication is nonverbal. Words matter, but tone, facial expression, and body language matter too. And because texting does not allow for the latter factors, we are left to fill in the blanks with our own potentially flawed analysis. Assumptions are, by nature, subjective and biased by our own perspective, and we are not mind-readers.
Again, it’s important to step back for a broader perspective, consider alternative explanations, and seek a more dedicated conversation with the source.
Texts Can Be Tricky
The cognitive biases that occur in sensitive texting topics can hurt our relationships.
Texting troubles often involve a heuristic trap of using a mental shortcut that might not fit the situation. This can involve letting our subjective thinking guide the conclusions, such as “I would have responded more quickly” or “If I said this sort of thing, it would mean I don’t care.” This is a negatively biased interpretation with selective attention to the negative.
This human tendency towards confirmation bias (seeking out and noticing only data that supports our worldview), especially under distress, is not conscious – but it does require conscious intervention to change. Rather than rigidly gripping only the pieces of information that seem to confirm our beliefs, we can practice the pattern of expanding our lens to also look for alternative explanations and examples of positive connection.
No Substitute for Direct, Real-Time Conversations
Some topics are simply better handled in person or at least with a live conversation.
Texting is a great way to have quick, efficient exchanges or to explore deeper-level topics that aren’t time-sensitive, overly emotional, or overly nuanced; however, a face-to-face or voice-to-voice conversation can often enrich and clarify so much.
Sometimes a real conflict or misunderstanding has occurred, and in certain circumstances it may need relational repair; other times, it needs clarification rather than repair. Asking honest questions and mindfully listening to responses in a curiously compassionate way are key.
Texts might seem like a comprehensive summary of a situation, but there is so much more to relationships. Just as the script for a play requires actors to do more than just say the words and leads directors to help contextualize the interactions on stage, humans too need to look beyond the words and aim to open up to understanding from multiple angles. And this is much better done directly.
