I was browsing a newsagent’s shelf the other day at a rail station and noticed that, given the current unrest, February’s Wired has an unfortunate cover:
Ironically, as Slashdot notes today, the Wired Website carries an interesting report today on some research into misunderstanding the intended tone of emails. As if you needed telling, email messages are an extremely dangerous form of communication, even when you aren’t involved in fraud and corruption or spinning the news, much of the time people misread their tone:
“Don’t work too hard,” wrote a colleague in an e-mail today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know (sarcastic), but I’m probably wrong.
According to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I’ve only a 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message. The study also shows that people think they’ve correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive 90 percent of the time.
“That’s how flame wars get started,” says psychologist Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago, who conducted the research with Justin Kruger of New York University. “People in our study were convinced they’ve accurately understood the tone of an e-mail message when in fact their odds are no better than chance,” says Epley.
The researchers took 30 pairs of undergraduate students and gave each one a list of 20 statements about topics like campus food or the weather. Assuming either a serious or sarcastic tone, one member of each pair e-mailed the statements to his or her partner. The partners then guessed the intended tone and indicated how confident they were in their answers.
Those who sent the messages predicted that nearly 80 percent of the time their partners would correctly interpret the tone. In fact the recipients got it right just over 50 percent of the time.
Of course, to misinterpret email you have to be able to read it in the first place…
You should definately read the original paper “When what you type isn’t what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies over e-mail”, it has a lot of other interesting stuff in it.
If you read it you’ll find a mistake that showed up in the Wired piece. People in their experiments didn’t have the a 50/50 chance of detecting emotional tone — instead, the chance of picking correctly the intent of irony vs sincerity was no better then random chance. A much more interesting interpretation than 50/50.
There is a long history of academic research substantiating Eply/Kruger thesis that we don’t interpret the emotional content (or as they call it, para-linguistic content) of text very well. The first academic paper that I’ve found that deals with this topic goes back to:
Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. 1988. Reducing Social Context Clues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication. Readings in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 684–712. Los Altos, California: Morgan Kaufmann.
I’ve written more about this topic and other sources for the cycle of flames in my blog at Flames: Emotional Amplification of Text.
It’s worse than that: I didn’t even include a link to the Wired article in my original post. I’ve corrected that now. Sorry. I’ve been a bit distracted today by computer hassles—as you might have noticed. Thanks for the additional info. I might even follow it up if I get the time later.
If you regard words as signifiers, little more than “place-holders” for the ideas and objects they represent in our minds, then language itself is about as blurred a way of painting a picture as casting clods of paint over the shoulder, without looking, at a blank canvas when trying to portray a landscape.
It’s about as controlled as a hungry ferret that’s loose in the trousers.
It’s all a bit too DIY-like too, in the sense that we can’t really guarantee that the interpreter of what we say/write to have the correct tools for the job of putting the message back together.
The only way I’ve found to be sure of reasonable communication is to be very very long-winded, and that’s hard work all round.
I don’t understand why the wired cover was unfortunate. I think it looks cool! Then again, I am one of the few sad individuals who still has all their childhood lego sets….
Because Lego™ is famously Danish.
Oooh. I didn’t know Lego was danish. And as I have no idea what the “famous cartoons” were, I don’t think I will get the joke!!!
Want to divulge what the cartoons were?
I’m not taking the mickey – I really am that naive when it comes to politics. I don’t even get the jokes on the cartoons now I’ve seen them.
What will you do with me?
Thanks for alerting me to the Wired article and the research. Unfortunately the link Christopher Allen gives above is not to the sarcasm/sincerity e-mail research paper but another one by the same authors, different journal, on the perseverance of stereotypes over e-mail, which is also interesting. It looks like you can ask the nice people at the Chicago Graduate School of Business Center for Decision Research to e-mail you a pdf of the sarcasm/sincerity article.
http://www.chicagocdr.org/cdrpubs/author_search.asp?author=epley
I’ve just asked – haven’t received it yet, hope it’s not just for affiliated people.