Carrying too Heavy a Load? The Communication and Miscommunication of Emotion by Email

Abstract

Despite advice to avoid doing so, email senders intentionally and unintentionally communicate emotion. Email characteristics make miscommunication likely, and I argue that receivers often misinterpret work emails as more emotionally negative or neutral than intended. Drawing on the computer-mediated and nonverbal communication, emotion, and perception literature, I introduce a theoretical framework describing what factors make miscommunication most likely, how emotional miscommunication affects organizations, and how employees can improve the accuracy of emotional communication in emails. Employees are increasingly likely to use and prefer electronic mail (email) to communicate with coworkers, customers, and other colleagues. The proliferation of email for business communication is likely due to some advantages, such as flexibility and asynchrony, it has over other communication media. Consequently, email has increased information sharing in organizations (Rice, 1987; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986) and has improved productivity among employees separated in time and place (Higa, Sheng, Shin, & Figueredo, 2000). However, the proliferation of email communication has also introduced some challenges not associated with other communication media. Research and theory suggest one likely deleterious effect of email use is harm to workplace relationships. Friedman and Currall (2003) have argued that the characteristics of email increase the likelihood of conflict escalation among those communicating by email. In their study of faculty and staff at a university teaching and research institute, Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman (1998) found that as email use increased, the overall volume of all forms of communication decreased, mostly because of fewer "greetings" and other informal interactions between

The Social Effects of Emotions are Functionally Equivalent Across Expressive Modalities

“…Surprisingly, however, most research on the communicative nature of emotional expressions has focused on facial displays of emotion. This focus has gone at the expense of attention paid to the informational and communicative functions of vocal, postural, verbal, and symbolic emotional expressions (but see, e.g., Aviezer, Trope, & Todorov, 2012;Byron, 2008;Coyne, 1976;Sauter, Eisner, Ekman, & Scott, 2010;Scherer, 1986;Van Kleef et al, 2004a;Wallbott, 1998). It is clear that facial expressions of emotion play a prominent role in regulating social interaction, but there is no reason to assume that they are unique in serving this function.…”

Bystander Responses to Bullying at Work: The Role of Mode, Type and Relationship to Target

“…not bullying), the perpetrator was not to blame and the target deserved it. Coupled with the fact that emotions are particularly difficult to accurately communicate and perceive via email (Byron 2008) and messages via email may increase the potential for misinterpretation (Giumetti et al 2012) empathic understanding may be reduced.…”

Extended Communication Efforts Involved With College Long-Distance Relationships

“…Sharing life experiences via the telephone or e-mail became an essential component to the relationship for the females in our present study-since they did not have other facets enjoyed by their peers, such as touch, sight, and non-verbal cues. Byron (2008) reported that miscommunication of intended messages is much higher when contact occurs via e-mail than it does when the same messages are transmitted in person. This general principle was enlightened by the findings of our present study.…”