It might sound scary, but if you really want to get a pay rise, then meet your boss in person rather than email a request.
That’s according to scientists in California who claim spoken arguments have a more powerful impact than those that are written.
This is because reading a point of view can ‘dehumanise’ an argument, leading to less empathy, and less chance the reader will come round to thinking in the same way.
The finding also goes some way to explain why heated rows often erupt on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.
It might sound scary, but if you really want to get a pay rise, then meet your boss in person rather than email a request. That’s according to scientists in California who claim spoken arguments have a more powerful impact than those that are written (stock image)
Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley exposed 300 people to a range of opinions and then asked them to judge the other person.
The topics included music genres and abortion, and were designed to incite a strong reaction.
When reading an argument they disagreed with, the listener had a tendency to ‘dehumanise’ the other person.
The scientists classed this as ‘having a diminished capacity to either think or feel.’
This assessment was far more likely to be formed when reading an opinion than when listening to it.
The study found that when someone listens to an argument they disagree with, the ability to hear the voice of the other person allows them to form a more well-rounded view of the person behind the comment.
The authors said in their study: ‘A person’s speech also conveys mental capacity, such that hearing a person explain his or her beliefs makes the person seem more mentally capable.
‘These results suggest that the medium through which people communicate may systematically influence the impressions they form of each other.’
The extra dimensions of verbal communication meant people were less likely to jump to extreme responses and were considerably less harsh.
When reading an argument they disagreed with, the listener had a tendency to ‘dehumanise’ the other person. When a listening to an argument instead of reading a transcript, they were far less dismissive
Speaking to The Washington Post, co-author of the study Juliana Schroeder said: ‘One of us read a speech excerpt that was printed in a newspaper from a politician with whom he strongly disagreed.
‘The next week, he heard the exact same speech clip playing on a radio station.
He was shocked by how different his reaction was toward the politician when he read the excerpt compared to when he heard it.
When he read the statement, the politician seemed idiotic, but when he heard it spoken, the politician actually sounded reasonable.’
The nuance and subtlety of verbal communication adds extra layers to just words.
The most productive way to argue, it would seem, is not online.
The study was published in Psychological Science.