Principles › Hearing each other

Hearing each other

Check before assuming

Text loses tone. Ask what they meant instead of guessing.

For example

Porcupine · a tipRiley’s “fine” could mean a few things. You might ask what they meant before you answer.

How Porcupine uses it

In practice

Say it out loud

Offer a call or a talk in person when a text would lose the warmth or the tone, and let them choose. Not when they’ve asked for space.

Why it helps

Without a voice or a face, readers have to fill in the tone, and they can get it wrong, sometimes reading a message as more negative than it was meant. Senders, meanwhile, overestimate how clearly they came across. Imagining the other person’s view doesn’t fix this: across 25 experiments, it didn’t make people more accurate. Asking them did. A voice carries the tone that text loses: in experiments, people who disagreed understood each other better and clashed less when they talked than when they wrote, though they expected the opposite. So for something a text would flatten, offering a call or a talk in person can help, as long as the other person is free to say no. Porcupine slows both sides down: senders see their words before they’re sent, and readers are encouraged to check before reacting. Porcupine follows the same rule itself, asking before it guesses at a fact it needs.

What we don’t know yet

The studies show that readers misjudge tone in email. We haven’t yet seen research on whether a nudge to check first changes how people reply. In experiments, people who disagreed got on better when they talked than when they wrote, but in studies of couples, conflicts by text ended about as well as face to face, so text isn’t the wrong way to have a hard conversation. And no study we’ve found tests suggesting a call instead of sending a hard text.

See it in a conversation

The research

Studied with adults in general

In five experiments, people overestimated how well their tone (sarcasm, seriousness, anger) came across over email. They “heard” the tone they meant, and found it hard to imagine reading the message without it.

Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925–936.

Studied with adults in general

Across 25 experiments, imagining another person’s point of view didn’t make people more accurate about what they thought. In the final experiment, asking them did.

Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571.

Studied with adults in general

In randomized experiments with 1,576 people who talked or wrote to someone who disagreed with them, the spoken conversations went better: more understanding, less conflict, and kinder views of each other. People expected the opposite, and preferred to write.

Bevis, B., Schroeder, J., & Yeomans, M. (2026). Spoken disagreement is more constructive than written disagreement. Nature Communications, 17, 5792.

More research

Studied with adults in general

In experiments about polarizing opinions, people who heard someone explain a view they disagreed with judged that person as more thoughtful than people who read the very same words.

Schroeder, J., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2017). The humanizing voice: Speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1745–1762.

Studied with adults in general

In a field experiment and lab studies, people expected a phone call to feel more awkward than writing. It wasn’t: talking by voice built a stronger connection than email or text chat, with no more awkwardness.

Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2021). It’s surprisingly nice to hear you: Misunderstanding the impact of communication media can lead to suboptimal choices of how to connect with others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(3), 595–607.

Studied with adults in general

Two meta-analyses of negotiation and group decision experiments found that seeing and hearing each other, and talking in real time, helped people who came in neutral, made no difference for people already set on cooperating, and made things worse for people set against each other.

Swaab, R. I., Galinsky, A. D., Medvec, V., & Diermeier, D. A. (2012). The communication orientation model: Explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 25–53.

Studied with couples

In an experiment, 100 couples were randomly assigned to discuss a conflict face to face or by text chat. Distress, anger and how far they resolved it came out the same either way.

Pollmann, M. M. H., Crockett, E. E., Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., & Schouten, A. P. (2020). Does attachment style moderate the effect of computer-mediated versus face-to-face conflict discussions? Personal Relationships, 27(4), 939–955.

Studied with couples

A systematic review of 15 studies of couples found that handling conflict by text went with similar outcomes to face to face on average, though it depended on the people involved.

Daspe, M.-È., Métellus, S., Emond, M., Bigras, N., Larouche, F., Adlhoch-Mathé, E., & Vaillancourt-Morel, M.-P. (2026). A systematic review of technology-mediated conflict management in couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 43(6), 1836–1861.

Theory

A theoretical review of how emotion travels by email argued that readers often take work emails as more negative, or more neutral, than the sender intended.

Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309–327.

Library last updated October 2026.