Technology is making communication easier in today’s world, but at the expense of personal contact as many people choose to interact from home in front of a computer screen
Innovative technologies have come into the human life so intensively that nowadays, it is impossible to live without those. Looking at people and their communication skills it becomes obvious that more and more time people spend on online communication sacrificing personal face-to-face communication.
The use of technologies in communication has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, people refuse from face-to-face communication in favor of online contact, however, innovation technologies help disabled people remain in contact with others, improve the business relations and assist others in communicating with those who live in other countries.
Considering the limitations of the online communication, it is essential to remember the quality of life. Communication affects the human quality of life. Having conducted a research among people in Hong Kong, Taipei, Beijing, and Wuhan referring to the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) of Diener it was proved that personal face-to-face communication positively affects human quality of life while online communication does not cane this activity either in the positive or in the negative way (Lee, Leung, Lo, Xiong and Wu 375). Therefore, people have to talk to each other more in real life to increase their quality of life in such complicated time.
The research conducted by Valkenburg and Peter also states that online communication negatively affects human well-being. However, having considered some specific conditions when close friends was included in the Internet communication and the ability to tall to strangers about similar interests, etc. the negative effect was eliminated.
Therefore, only correct online communication with the stated purposes (not at the expense of the personal interaction) may improve human well-being, while in other cases the negative effect is seen (Valkenburg and Peter 43).
Email, Skype, fax, and mobile phones help people remain in contact on long distances. Business world has won much time and effort with the developing of the innovation technologies. Using the Internet for building international relationships many people win from this opportunity.
Moreover, the information may be delivered faster and without additional attempt. Manu people are sure that the internet changes human life, especially in the social aspects, referring to the reduction of the personal communication in favor of online. However, the literature review conducted by Tyler shows that the Internet and other innovative technologies do not change social life of people, they change the way how people interact, creating new ways for solving old problems (Tyler 195).
Thus, people could not even imagine that they would have an opportunity to talk to their close relatives who live in other countries almost every day. The video connection also helps see them. Disabled people also have an opportunity to communicate even more than they would in the real life.
Therefore, it may be concluded that the innovative technologies have brought more advantages in our life than disadvantages, however, there are people who become addicted to the Internet communication leaving face-to-face interaction pout of demand. This is wrong and such cases are just the negative effect which exists in all systems. People communicate with each other, but the Internet technologies have just brought more opportunities and have changed the way people performed their tasks before.
Lee, Paul, Leung, Louis, Lo, Venhwei, Xiong, Chengyu and Tingjun Wu. “Internet Communication versus Face-to-face Interaction in Quality of Life.” Social Indicators Research 100.3 (2011): 375-389. Print.
Tyler, Tom. R. “Is the Internet changing social life? It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Journal of Social Issues 58.1 (2002): 195-205. Print.
Valkenburg, Patti and Jochen Peter. “Internet Communication and Its Relation to Well-Being: Identifying Some Underlying Mechanisms.” Media Psychology 9.1 (2007): 43-58. Print.