Face-to-face Vs Virtual Communication
Communication involves sharing ideas between individuals, but the effectiveness of the process depends on the method used to communicate. Face-to-face communication mode has existed for ages, but the new technology has enabled individuals to communicate without physical meetings. Virtual communication is a technological method of communication where individuals communicate without necessary meetings. Research conducted to identify people’s experience with online dating reflects on the differences between virtual communication and face-to-face communication.
The survey involved interviews with five questions through which each participant had to answer. The questions used in the survey included: Have you ever used online dating platforms? What was your experience after using the platforms? What encouraged you to try online dating? What makes online dating more favorable than a physical meeting? How can you advise individuals wishing to try online dating? The survey resulted in insights into the differences between the two modes of communication. The process of communication in a face-to-face meeting was costly than virtual communication. The researcher incurred costs in traveling and accessibility of the venue. Face-to-face meetings forced the interviewer and the interviewee to be present at the same location simultaneously. The challenges made the participants feel exhausted and less motivated to participate in the survey. Virtual communication was simpler and less time-consuming. The survey did not include any traveling or extra costs through venues since communication occurred by sharing messages and video meetings.
The answers developed through face-to-face communication had a higher value than virtual communication. The interviewer used more than words to determine the validity of the information received. Body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions were analyzed in face-to-face meetings to determine whether the interviewee was confident or confused. Confidence meant the interview was honest about their experiences, while confusion indicated disagreement. Individuals in the face-to-face meeting were freer than in virtue communication. The physical meeting allowed the participants to create a bond that influenced their openness. Virtual communication made individuals brief in their explanations because they were less familiar with the interviewer.
Face-to-face meetings allowed the interview to become more knowledgeable on the topic through engagement. Engagement with the interviewee, however, increased the time spent during the interview. On the other hand, virtual meetings focused on the most relevant information enabling the research to take less time. Questions that needed less explanation were effectively answered in virtual communication, but the ones with descriptions were challenging due to lack of openness. The rate of attention to virtual communication was low due to delays caused by multitasking. The participants engaged in other activities that influence the efficiency and quality of the information received. The face-to-face meeting allowed the interviewer to control the attention of the participants through questions and their presence.
In conclusion, face-to-face and virtual meeting differences develop according to the nature of communication and purpose. Face-to-face interaction is best when communication is more engaging in discussing and identifying factors outside the research. Individuals can apply face-to-face interactions in interpersonal communications to assess information off-records. Interactions with fewer interactions can apply virtual information because it is brief and straight to the point. These interactions consume less time because individuals are aware of the most relevant information. Both participants in virtual communication should be aware of the topic; thus, little clarification is needed. Time can also determine which method to use in interactions. Interactions requiring less time may use virtual communication, while interactions without time limitation can utilize face-to-face interactions. Application of the wrong strategy during an interaction affects the quality of communication and the interaction results.
References
Smith, R. S. (2014). Collaborative Bandwidth: Creating Better Virtual Meetings. Organization Development Journal, 32(4). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=08896402&AN=99338538&h=n6VRWQ2viTuIluGI8JvvhF%2Blcb4Ae%2F0k1xIlBgiV8hPMwUGWs7rQK8ANS7TRRkYKteBLTPOGi%2FyXHwct3CrKhg%3D%3D&crl=c
Tilahun, N., & Li, M. (2015). Geography of close contacts and face-to-face meetings (No. 15-5591). https://trid.trb.org/view/1339322