You’ve probably been on a Zoom call that seemed to last forever and bore you to the core. Maybe you used to have lively work meetings before your group moved online. Or perhaps you have found that people act more robotically on Zoom, with neutral facial expressions and awkward silences.
Zoom Calls Versus In-Person Events
One recent study found that Zoom calls detract from typical levels of social responsiveness.Yale researchers compared partner interactions in conditions similar to those on Zoom with in-person interactions. In the study, partners sat across a table from each other. To measure in-person interactions, the partners could see each other through a glass panel. For Zoom-like conditions, participants viewed their partners’ faces on computer monitors in real-time. To compare these interactions, researchers recorded where people looked and for how long, the dilation of their pupils to measure arousal, and brain activity.
The difference? For starters, the participants looking through the glass panel spent more time looking at their partners’ faces, a possible precursor for thinking deeply about those social partners. Moreover, their pupils were wider, indicating that they were more engaged. That aligns with what many of us know from living with Zoom; it can be less engaging than in-person meetings.
Brain measures can lend context to this behavior. When we view an object, part of that involves localizing where it is in space. As physical beings, we conceptualize much of our world through a 3D map. The study found that people’s brains were not as strongly registering “where” their partner was in Zoom-like conditions, a typical part of seeing each other in person. The 3D orientation—an essential aspect of encoding information—is missing from the picture.
Coinciding with the findings about lack of engagement and spatial context, participants also showed less long-range (theta-band frequency) communication among brain regions. This indicates that faces are not being perceived in as much depth.
The Brain’s Processing of People
We can say quite literally that your brain doesn’t respond the same way on Zoom as it does with people in person. A great deal of fascinating scientific literature has mapped out much of how we respond to social stimuli on the order of milliseconds—from processing initial visual input to recognition, categorization, attitudes, emotions, and finally, behavior.One part of the social experience involves categorizing “what” we’re looking at. Faces stand out to the brain, so they are prioritized and invite further processing. The brain searches the features of the face for details that evoke myriad semantic associations, such as “friendly,” “artistic,” or “intelligent.” Depending on its categorization, the brain may curtail its information search or seek more information.
One crucial social process is known as “mentalizing,” or recognizing the intentionality of others, including their desires, beliefs, feelings, and goals. In short, you view them as a person rather than a thing. We tend to mentalize most for other people, especially those closest to us, somewhat for animals such as monkeys, dogs, and cats, and less for, e.g., goldfish.
Keeping It Real
With this information in hand, we see that part of the reason online communication is less engaging might be that our brains don’t have as much information available to process. That may make us not only less attentive but also less understanding and connected.It pays to ponder the implications of a culture in which more and more online communication is the norm. How we process social experiences can alter the basis from which we reason, shape our culture, and drive societal trajectories.
Simply interacting face-to-face is likely more organic, so in-person communion is probably worthwhile when it’s possible.
Copy
