Communicating Persuasively, Email or Face-to-Face?

Jeremy Dean writes "Our intuitive understanding is that face-to-face communication is the most persuasive. In reality, of course, it's not always possible to meet in person, so email wins out. How, then, do people react to persuasion attempts over email? Persuasion research has uncovered fascinating effects: that men seem more responsive to email because it bypasses their competitive tendencies (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2002). Women, however, may respond better in face-to-face encounters because they are more 'relationship-minded'. But is this finding just a gender stereotype?"

Email has failed

ask the Airline industry, we invent all these ways to communicate over vast distances, VOIP, Telephone, IM, Email etc etc and people are flying to meet each other more than ever

Re:Email has failed

"Email has failed"

Speak for yourself buddy. Email and IM are enormous boons to keeping in contact and making friends who share common interests across the world, what is slashdot if not a giant email discussion list in the form of a bulletin board?

The real problem I believe is that email isn't personal enough and good videocamera's integrated into computers for "email" the next big thing is vloging or "vlogging" if someone finally made a workable video phone with optional image broadcast with a decent display and ratio adjuster, that just worked everywhere. It would sell, believe you me.

Re:Email has failed

First of all, if you are running a business you should not have to persuade your employees, coworkers, or higher ups. Persuading your employees to comply shouldn't be that hard of a task and if they don't then it isn't because you aren't a good persuader but rather perhaps they are the wrong employee for the job (or perhaps you are asking them to do something they simply can't do or isn't actually their job in the first place).

Management by decree is a great way to ensure that you lose good talent. If you are having trouble getting them to comply, it is possible that there's a problem with the employee. But it's more likely that they need to be brought "on board" -- full participation. That is what the persuasion is for. All the staff at my company already have their hands full. If management needs someone to do something additional, then the employees must be persuaded that the new project is more important than the work they have pending. Or they need to be peruaded to work some additional hours.

As for work that "isn't actually their job in the first place," that's a valid argument only in companies with well-defined roles (typically large ones). In small and mid-sized business, many people wear many hats.

However, persuading higher ups and coworkers isn't your job either. If you have to do a song and dance with a power point presentation every time to the CEO every time you need to get something approved to do your basic job functions then perhaps your employers don't trust you or they just don't care well enough to put into place a system into which you can perform your job independently but with oversight. Of course thats more of a management issue...

Also way off base. A manager is responsible for what goes on in their department; what happens when their boss asks why X was implemented at a cost of $Y? This is one reason why you need to persuade your manager of what is necessary. Another reason they need to be persuaded is that they are balancing a lot more in the decision-making process than you probably realize. They may be privy to information you are not. They may have been given a directive that runs counter to your proposal.

In fact, people with authorization to buy products or services should be hired on the sole fact they are not easily persuaded and do not take bribes from vendors.

What do you mean by 'bribes'? That's a harsh word for a business lunch, or a couple drinks in the evening. Kickbacks are a problem, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

They should be the ones cold calling the vendors and then asking for plain cold information in emails and then not respond to the vendors relentless voice mails and not wasting company money going to meetings with countless vendors when they already know what product/service the company should buy.

You don't do a lot of purchasing, do you? How do you think you get vendors to offer you their absolute best terms? How do you think you build a relationship with a vendor so that when you need a part delivered *right now* they do it with a smile and at no charge? What about when you need to negotiate looser payment terms? Or when a part dies a month after warranty expiration, and you want to get a free replacement anyway?

I used to think that purchasing etc should be a matter of pure numbers, as you seem to think. But as the years have gone by, I've discovered that all those non-quotables really pay off when push comes to shove, and it's the personal relationships that drive them.

The next time you have a complaint about shoddy service (and we all have them) maybe you should think about building a relationship with a supplier so that *you* matter to them?

Ya well...

Try not to overthink this. Of course people can be persuaded via email, you just need to get to know them first before-hand. Legit (non-spam) email marketing is a huge business.

Depends on the recipient

The more technologyically-friendly one is, the easier it is to persuade them by email. The more details-oriented one is, the easier it is to persuade them by email. The more "frat boy and golf games" on is, the harder it is, typically, to persuade them over email.

Perhaps another interesting question applicable...

What do you do if you suck at persuasion face to face? Or simply talking, for that matter? When I write an email I'm able to think about what I say before I say it and rearrange things after the fact if it comes out wrong. Can't do that in conversation, you have to get it right the first time, and know exactly where you're going and how you're going to get there before you start. Been trying for years, but simply can't. What then? In my opinion a good email would be better than a bad face to face impression.

Re:Perhaps another interesting question applicable

I hear ya there, and used to feel like I was in the same boat. Practice makes perfect though -- the more f2f time you get, the more refined your skills become.

Re:Perhaps another interesting question applicable

Mod this guy waaaay up... the key to getting better working with people is NOT to hide behind a computer. If persuasion is your goal, the guy going face-to-face will always beat out the guy exclusively using email. That is why the world still has salesmen.

Re:Perhaps another interesting question applicable

I think you have a point about writing being better thought out. The problem is, some people simply don't work that way. I know a couple guys at work to whom I just don't bother writing detailed emails, because every time I've tried, it's obvious they simply don't read them, no matter how important they are and how well I craft the language.

Similarly, I used to wonder why people travel to expensive training courses when you can get all the same information from a book - which is usually better organized and from a more authoritative source, anyways. But I've realized, many people simply do not, and will not, sit down and master the information in a book to save their lives. Even successful people. You have to sit them in a room with minimal distractions and engage them face to face.

fear of being mocked at?

Can't do that in conversation, you have to get it right the first time, and know exactly where you're going and how you're going to get there before you start.

Correct; the only problem is that you want it to happen instantly - which is exactly why it ends up in failure.

I've been researching this issue myself and I concluded that the solution is not to let somebody push you towards a quick answer. Things done/said in haste are usually not well-planned. What email does is that it gives you that ability to take your time and think things over; you can do the same in a real discussion by not replying if you don't have an answer. Tell them that you don't know yet, tell them that you need some extra time, but don't talk out of /dev/random.

Many people know this and use this against us - the trick is to force someone provide a quick answer to a question. The person who answers focuses on providing a fast solution, rather than providing an optimal solution - this is where we lose. I also have to add that those who generate the questions that are 'designed' to knock us down are people who carefully plan their attack. In conversations they can bring up non-essential things that you will waste your CPU cycles on, while they think about their next 'hit'.

Another idea is that you are afraid that the person you're having a conversation with will laugh at you (in the worst case) if you tell them you can't provide an immediate answer. But fear that not, any reasonable human being is understanding and only someone unpolite and ignorant will have something against your taking your time. Personally, I never push people towards making decisions in a rush, I admire those who are not afraid to tell me that they are 'not ready' yet, and I try to avoid those who consciously use this technique as an 'offensive weapon'.

Enough PC Bullshit Please

Can't we do science without worrying about whether we're hurting someone's feelings? This is just getting ridiculous.

Re:Enough PC Bullshit Please

If that's so, ask the question 'is this science valid,' not 'is this a stereotype?'

hmmm... another analysis of email...

Many years ago the game industry did some research on internet based communications. For online gaming purposes.
Overall they found that communication can more easily degenerate into flames over the internet than into being productive as opposed to face to face communication.

Ultimately each mode of communication has its upside and down side and side effects.

Eh, email sucks

When I am writing something personal, I always end up over analyzing everything I write. I sit, rewrite, write it again, delete it all write again and it just seems to never end so it sounds "perfect."

At least for my personal life I like face to face because I am forced to be more "genuine" and say what pops into my head.

(Guadagno & Cialdini, 2002)

A reference, on Slashdot?! You must be new here.

you can't persuade using email .....

..... all yo can do is plead!
A lot of the art of persuasion requires the persuader to apply some form of pressure (usually non-physical) onto their intended victim. This makes the victim cave-in to remove the pressure. Email just doesn't have that kind of "presence" (see todays Dilbert) it's just too easy to ignore it.

The best you can do is have an overwhelming reason why your request must be complied with - and to CC the email to your victim's boss.

On the other side, email is a great leveller. People who would not normally speak up for themselves can be quite eloquent and demonstrate sharp insights when they have time to compose their messsage, and aren't shot-down/cut-out by people with louder voices or fewer social qualms

Er, phone?

I know it's old fashioned tech, but it seems to work OK. As a slashpoll this article has remarkably few options.

Face to Face

Since I am an avid Slashdot reader, I haven't ventured out of the basement for many years.

I have learned how to write a persuasive email, and I usually follow it up with a phone call as well.

Telephone?

I guess Guadagno and Cialdini were more interested in the way email compares to face to face stuff, but it seems odd not to consider the telephone as an aspect of this study. The telephone offers a sort of sense of 'oneness' and familiarity with the voice, while still masking subtle cues that might otherwise lead to competitive or uncooperative behavior.

sigh

But is this finding just a gender stereotype?

Yes. This is, to be more specific, just another example of the phenomenon that people will research anything which will press peoples' buttons. Whether it is valuable research or not. Who gives these people grants?

My cat fetches; will someone give me a grant? I want to find out whether he is a dog.

Nothing Ever Happens Over Email.

This is my personal email axiom.

Nothing Ever Happens Over Email.

There has to be some kind of interactive contact. Phone is okay. Face to face is best. But in my experience and those with whom I work, nothing is ever initiated, negotiated, and settled over email. Trying to do so kills potential projects. Switching over to phone or face-to-face always increases the chance of success.

Just try being a telecommuting director some time

I telecommute to a company six hundred miles away, and persuasion by email is impossible.

I send proposal after proposal, request for comment after request, but most of my coworkers -- which are located in the same facility -- see non-customer emails as the lowest priorities, and consider them pretty much ignorable.

My boss (non pointy haired, but not much better) included.

And I'm a pretty persuasive writer (maybe not this message).
But if it doesn't get read, it doesn't get responded to.

So at least once a month, I have to commute to what has become my least favorite airport in the US, just to get a face-to-face decision or committment.

One other hint about persuasive email

Never email in Anger or frustration.

The person who is reading the email should feel the puckering of your lips from any distance!

Not enough info

The submission and blog entry pose the question, but don't really answer it:

* How is "oneness" measured and quantified?

* How is suasion measured and quantified?

* Scatter plot of the two for the different modes (email, face-to-face) for different gender combinations? Perhaps, with statistical measures (e.g., regression figures)?

* Subject selection protocol and any caveats?

Maybe write back when the paper is actually published.

Still one better way

Also, there's still one better way. Leaving a comment on their MySpace. Should persuade anyone.

Spam

If a chick came up to me in real life and said, "HEY BABY CUM CHECK OUT MY WEBCAM," I'd definitely be more persuaded. However, I don't think anybody could convince me that I need to enlarge 4 to 6 cm. My penis is just fine right now.

Medium has to fit the message!

Marshall McLuan said [of TV]: "The Medium is the Message." That is an atstute observation, but turn it around and it really says the medium is part of the message.

Media have characteristics. Messages have characteristics. It is best they work in harmony.

For a concrete example, I usually avoid communicating a complex controversial idea verbally. It's too confrontational and recepients may miss key points or react too early and get themselves locking into an unnecessarily contrary position. Beter they read and react in private, then calm down before replying.

In person is very good for using body language when sincerity or other emotions are important components of the message. Phone is not quite as good, but often a very workable intermediate.

But I certainly don't consider in-person to be any sort of "gold standard" in communications. Too many different messages.

Learned early and from my mother...

...that you can't communicate effectively unless you can get an entire point across without interruption. If I need to actually persuade someone, nothing makes more sense than email. With verbal communication, the listener can butt-in whenever they feel like it, and do many things to ultimately conceal my point.

I'd think

It'd depend more on the person trying to do the persuading. Who hasn't met someone who in person has great charisma but writes emails like "so dude u shd totally do it it rocks!!!!" Who hasn't met someone who in person fumbles around with speech full of "ums" and "uhs", but writes clear, concise and persuasive emails?

Moo

*sigh*

How many times are we going to rediscover the T/F difference. Most men are T, most women are F.

I'm beginning tpo believe that the Atlantians did exist, and ha technology far superior to ou own. But, they got old, and everyone ignored them, and now we just make up stories.

Email is permanent, conversations evaporate

Face to face time is certainly important, but I'm always amazed at how differently people remember conversations, and how quickly people forget key parts of those conversations. Without some sort of record, it's hard to pin people down on what actually transpired. Email is less personal, but at least you have a written record.

For important things, you always have to follow up the conversation with an email just to keep things straight. (unless you're in politics, then you should never use email so you won't get caught in your lies)

As a geek who moved into sales & consultancy

it's face/face communication that wins almost every time.

Sales pitches and closing a deal is easiest in person. Next on the phone. Almost never via email exclusively - but does happen.

When you're trying to sell something, be it an idea or a product, most of the time the person you're selling the idea or concept to could get something that will work from anyone. What you're selling is confidence that you will be able to deliver, implement, whatever. It's much easier to communicate genuine confidence in skills, product or ability with other cues besides words - be it voice inflection, posture, facial expression, etc.

No rocket science here.

i say

e-mail persuasion works the best when there is a doom feasibility of hardcopy communication. Hard, as in "or do you want me to come to your cubicle hole and feed you your own balls?".

Most Effective: USE ALL CAPS WITH EXCLAMATIONS!!!!

The hierarchy of effective communication goes something like this:

1. African drums
2. Smoke signals
3. Cell phone with bad reception
4. Face-to-face communication
5. Instant messaging ;)
6. E-mail
7. E-MAIL WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS FOR ADDED EXTRA EMPHASIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's wrong with differences?

I don't understand the need to type everything as a stereotype, especially when it comes to gender equality. Nature shaped man and woman into two different things. Why is it automatically a stereotype and "bad" when research comes out that says men communicate better via e-mail, and women face-to-face? No one is saying it applies to all men, or all women, nor are they saying that people cannot transcend their natural tendencies.

You'll see similar over-reactions to studies that say men are better at math. No one will actually debate the study, it's just a bunch of people stomping their feet like children saying "I'M AS GOOD AT MATH THAN YOU, MR. MAN!" No one is saying you aren't, the study just found that overall, men were better at math. That doesn't make women inferior, that makes them different, that's all. Yet when studies work out the difference of parenting, for instance, between the genders, you'll see women commenting that "Well, obviously we're better at parenting!" I realize that the genders haven't been on an equal playing field for long, but some people (on both sides) aren't exactly making it easy.

It's not gender discrimination or stereotyping issue unless the information is used for nefarious purposes, such as firing a woman from a 10-year career as an accountant because the HR director read that women were worse off at math when compared to men. Grow some balls, or something.

Best Way to Persuade Someone,,,

At the point of gun. Works for government.

Face vs Email

Face to face is when you can use your personality and the intimacy of the situation of influence the discussion. The converse is true; you can use your personal presence to intimidate the other party as well.

Email, on the other hand, can be used when the other person might think your you have something to hide, "if they saw your face" or if you want to bury some facts deep within a dense bit a email. The converse is also true, if you are not particularly intimidating in person, you might have a better chance of coming off that way via email. Also if you don't have a winning personality, you can over come that through a well written email.

When considering F2F vs. Email think about the following as well. Face to face, you have to think on your feet and "roll w/ the punches" while emails can be much more crafted, thought-out, and cogent.

One other consideration is for someone like me who is dyslexic, I often come across much better in person, while in email, even with spelling checkers and grammar checkers, I can mistype, misspell and so forth. In person I can use more advanced vocabulary, while in email I have to use far simpler works that I can spell easily.

Show us your t...

A man might be more easily persueded by another man over e-mail, but nothing can beat the viscerally persuasive power of a woman with a low cut top and short skirt.

email spoken word

personally i prefer email for most things where i can just paste a url into the message body to reference something. it is not so easy to do this in speech.

for brain storming sessions, the personal touch is often greater.

Priorities

Sometime back on /. I read the following priority

1. Meet face to face
2. Phone
3. Mail
4. Email

Use Both

I use email for anything where you need a document trail, and for communications that can lead to a resolution in one or two rounds of messages. I use phone calls, IM, a handwritten note, leaving documents on someone's chair, or face-to-face for anything else. "Anything else" includes most things that matter. For example, giving feedback via email is generally not optimal.

The ancient Greeks taught their ambitious young men (not women, those were even more sexist times than we're in now) logic and rhetoric. Both were necessary in order to be effective. I learned to be more persuasive and more effective at emotionally engaging with my coworkers and customers because people are not solely motivated by logic when making decisions. Even people who regard themselves as entirely rational. There were far too many times when technically correct decisions were stymied by other concerns that were emotional in origin. It's one thing to know the right thing to do. It's entirely another thing to convince other people that it's right. People are judging you all the time, and part of what they're judging is your conviction, your confidence, your sense of urgency, their impression of your ability to make something happen, and whether you're such a pain in the ass that they don't want to deal with you even if you do get things done. In business (as opposed to peer-reviewed journals) all those things matter, and initiatives fail if the chemistry is wrong. Even in peer-reviewed journals, reviewers are responsive to the reputation of the authors and social interactions influence review outcomes.

So sometimes you need to use irrational means to achieve rational ends. And that's because we are not machines, we're social. We need to engage on more than just the level of logic, even though we're in a business where logical decision-making is necessary.

It's also worth keeping in mind that people work, think and interact differently, so email might work well for one person but face-to-face is the best way to interact with someone else. These simplistic "works for men, not for women" conclusions are too shallow to be actionable.

The principle I follow is to over-communicate, never to rely on a single communication channel when communicating anything important, and to learn what works best for different people.

exactly

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19991118 [userfriendly.org]
read the next 2 strips as well.

i am not funny! i am informative!

Communicating Persuasively, Email or Face-to-Face

Depends on what the basis of your persuasion is.
If you are basing your argument or position on facts, data, or logic,
then email is plaintext straightforward.
OTOH if you are trying to sway, persuade, or con someone
about a political, managerial, personal, emotional, or bullshit issue
then Face-To-Face is the only way to go.
Email is too open to misinterpretation of intent without
the additional audio & visual cues for correct context.

You CONFIRM in writing after a face to face

As per my other posting on a thread about Second Life real estate, only face to face allows for true understanding and use of our 5 natural senses. Email or other 'written' communication should then be used for confirmation of specific information, such as contracts, events planning, meetings etc! Common sense really!

In dynamic situations, you look at marginal values

One of the pitfalls of making comparison such as between email to face to face meetings is that in real life situations, people do not look at average values, but marginal values. Average values are useless when you are dealing with complex relationships.

If you are deciding to email somebody or to make a meeting, you don't ask "is it better on average to email or to have a meeting." You ask "at this point am I better off sending an email or having a meeting."

Suppose you've just spent a week locked in a conference room with the other person filling up flip charts, chances are you are more likely to opt for email in your next communication. If you've been shooting emails back and forth about a proposal for a month, chances are you're ready to to have a face to face.

Likewise email and face to face meetings have different costs; therefore there are different thresholds of utility you must anticipate before you'd undertake an email vs. a meeting. If a friend says, you really should talk to Mr. X about something or other, chances are you're going to consider the following options (in order of how important the subject is): email, phone call, meeting.

What is helpful is to understand how people behave differently in different media. That's not a simple story either. Maybe its true that emails don't trigger men's competive instincts as readiliy as meetings. Suppose it is. Well, it's also true that the perceived cost of aggressive responses are less in email and blog: in other words its safer to engate in a flame war over email than a shouting match in person. However, the value of prevailing is perceived as lower (if we believe the hypothesis).

Diminishing values apply to communication as much as anything else. Imagine a world of "optimum" communication where every communication opportunity was exploited when its marginal value was greater than its marginal cost. Eventually a balance between email and meetings would be reached that would have very little direct relationship to their relative "average" value.

The answer? "No".

But is this finding just a gender stereotype?"

Of course it isn't. But their explanation of the finding might be. I wish people would learn the difference.

Communications Nonsense

This story is retarded and points out why communications is crap. If you need to get ahold of someone, you do it however you need to. However, you know damn good and well that person to person is always the way to have a discussion if you want the maximum impact, as it's a lot harder to ignore someone in person, while it is fairly easy to not pay attention or to skim their points via email/phone/etc.

After a while in college, and several required communications classes, I came to the conclusion that communications is what you major in if:

1. You're not smart enough to be an English major, and
2. You're not practical/creative enough to be a business/marketing (both of which are also a bit on the bunk side, hence why they get no capitals in my world) major, and
3. You're lazy and don't want to do real college level work, and
4. You know that you're not very intelligent, but you really want to sound like it (see: half the posts in this topic, they spend 5 paragraphs trying to sound intelligent, but all they really succeed in doing is talking out of their asses for 5 paragraphs).

And the best part, for being people that are such great communicators, they get very pissed when you tell them that their major/degree is crap and they really don't know how to respond to the smash mouth policies or the good old fashioned logic you learn in other disciplines that you use to kindly point out why it is crap. If they can't take Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle out of context and apply them to some dumb point they're trying (and usually failing) to make, they don't know what to do.

But I guess they do serve some purpose, they bring everyone else together. Political Science, History, English, Math, Physics, Engineering, Economics, and all other big boy majors all enjoy a good harping on the crap that is communications. Here's to you, the great unifiers, the commtards...

Another point of view

While I do believe you can avoid the competiton part by using email, I do not agree that it's more persuasive. If you talk to someone with whom you have a competitive relationship then you need to take advantage of that. Let the other person "win" the competition (with his consious mind) as you persuade him (subconsiously). Of course this is more manipulation than it is persuasion so Cialdini still has a valid point.

Btw - If you're into persuasion you need to read Cialdinis other works. He has some great insights into the matter.

People can respond to emails for another reason

Depending on the structure and wording of the sentences and paragraphs, different readers can draw different conclusions about the author. I know I have read articles and short stories in which I drew a particular conclusion about the author's ideas, only to later find I was mistaken. The mistake was not made by poor wording or ambiguity on the authors part. Instead, it was largely made by my choice of what written things I placed the most importance. If I feel strongly about a certain topic, I am more likely to place a lot of emphasis on a sentence in the paragraph that deals with that topic than I will on a topic on which I am neutral. If I place more emphasis on an idea than the author does, I am more likely to draw a misconceived conclusion about the views and points the author is trying to convey.

E-mails, chat, and IMs are the best ways for me...

... because I have speech and hearing impediments. Verbal communication is much worse for me because of my disabilities. However, I am much better in communications via e-mails, chat, forums, IMs, and anything else that doesn't require verbal communications (can't do braille).

I also face the same problem with people ignoring my e-mails, IMs, chats, etc. I have to follow-up often to remind them. :(

Are there any other best tips to improve their responses?

Actual emails I receive

I can't imagine why people would have trouble communicating via email -- male or female. Behold, snippets of actual user emails I receive from allegedly professional, successful adults with college educations:
These are actual emails I receive, daily, from the users at a telecom for which I work.

this phone has not worked in 2 days
error message is : failed to get boot parameters
via dHCP or whatever
please fix the phones
THANKS

"Via DHCP or whatever." Thanks.

WHY ARE THE PHONES NOT WORKING

That was the whole email. In its entirety.

Main number DOES NOT WORK and answers as DISCONNECTED. This number was successfully ported to you guys in August/September, and has otherwise been working fine !!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need this number to work ASAP!!!!!!!!!!

I swear to you I did not add a single exclamation point to that. Also, if you can tell me how "does not work" and "otherwise works fine" fit together, I'm listening.

FOR THE LAST 4 DAYS WE CANNOT MAKE OUTGOING CALLS TO 800 OR 866 NUMBERS. IT GOES TO A QUICK BUSY SOUND. PLS ADVISE.

"Pls" turn off your caps lock and learn to spell.

NOW you fucking tell me that? When in the fuck did you ever tell me I
would need a router or switch? Eveyone has those laying around?

And you also said I could plug it into the wall. What kind of
instruction is that? Do I just kick a hole in the wall big enough for a
USB connection, or does everyone have working sockets in their wall to
accomodate phone systems in case they get one?

Where do I get a fucking router or switch and how much more am I going
to have to spend? And where does THAT plug in?

I paid for a fucking phone that would plug into my computer, God damnit.

This was the response to a salesguy from my company telling the customer that the VoIP phone plugs into a router, not the modem jack on his Mac. I really wish I was making this one up.

You'll notice a pattern to these, as well. Specifically, people who have fairly severe problems, but don't tell anyone for days at a time, then dash off a barely-coherent, OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE message into the ether. This is what passes for proper business correspondance these days, and to these people, blithering about a problem days, weeks, or even months after the fact is a perfectly rational way to behave.

These are people who will go on and on about how successful they are with their little mortgage broker jobs or what-have-you. These are men AND women who read and write at the sixth-grade level.

Email fails to communicate -- not because of the medium, but because of the mouth-breathers who use it.

Contradictory, or just arbitrary?

> men seem more responsive to email because it bypasses their competitive tendencies

Which is profoundly contradicted by research on flaming:

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=967562&dl=AC M&coll=&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618 [acm.org]

http://www.indiana.edu/~tisj/readers/full-text/15- 3%20guest.html [indiana.edu]

The lack of "media richness" in email makes its intent easier to mistake. Males tend to jump to conclusions because the tend to try to problem-solve everything (especially when the problem is figuring out if they've been attacked), while females tend to either give it the benefit of the doubt or ignore it.

In TFA, the authors start from a hypothesis which includes an operational definition nobody else uses, and they go on to support what amounts to a supposition. A great deal of communications studies in both gender communication and computer mediated communication is entirely ignored. I've studied both, taught both, and published in the latter. It's a gender stereotype when you draw the conclusion, right or wrong, without considering objective data. TFA ignores masses of objective data. Therefore I submit that their conclusion is precisely the thing they claim to be trying to study.