Can Online Social Interactions Ever be as Authentic as In-Person Ones?

These days, it feels like most people actively prefer to stay at home and limit social interaction. Ask them about it, and they’ll swear that they still interact with people, just virtually and not in person. There was a time when virtual interactions were a clearly separate and distinct aspect of our lives.

People hung out in forums and chat rooms, but there was a general consensus that social interaction was something that happened face-to-face. This is becoming an increasingly rare belief. However, where does the truth lie? Are social media and virtual interaction just as authentic as talking to people in real life? Let’s explore more in this article.

Are We Wired for More than Pixels?

Arguably, the biggest argument you could make in favor of in-person interactions is the concept of senses. Talking with people in real life is a comprehensive sensory experience. Sure, the virtual world unlocks two of the five major senses with sight and sound, but that’s enough to achieve many things already. 

We have to be realistic because it is not like online interactions are totally pointless. Even in fields like mental health and social work, where interaction is critical, virtual interaction seems to do the job just fine. Take the case of an online advanced standing MSW program that many universities offer today. 

These programs train students for high-empathy, high-interaction careers like social work, entirely through digital platforms. That’s not a minor thing, and it speaks volumes about how far virtual learning has come.

As Keuka College notes, the online experience can be just like a close-knit community. There is a certain level of truth to this. After all, during the COVID-19 pandemic, so many people found virtual communities to be a God-send for human connectivity. 

Indeed, according to a systematic review of over 20 papers, social media use during the COVID-19 pandemic helped sustain emotional, social, and informational support. One study found that adolescents who used social media reported better ‘happiness’ outcomes.  

However, it also begs the question about which mode is healthier. There’s a possibility that humans are evolutionarily designed to be around people in a physical sense. What’s more, with the virtual world being here for just a few decades, we still don’t know the long-term implications. 

Which Comes First? Format or Context?

A study by MIT found something interesting with regard to how people respond to virtual vs in-person faces. Researchers used hyperscanning,  fNIRS, and EEGs to discover that brain activation was significantly increased when exposed to real, in-person faces and cues.

It will be interesting to learn from future research how parasocial relationships fit into the picture. After all, one of the biggest ways that people in isolation find comfort is by following YouTubers and streamers. Sometimes, the emotional investment in these online figures is surprisingly strong. 

So, while science objectively shows that in-person is richer in the way we experience it, we can clearly see that it’s not the entire story. Yes, it’s true that the ultimate form of social connection occurs in person, but that doesn’t always happen. You may have experienced how, sometimes, even when physically present with someone, you feel a complete lack of connection. 

Thus, even if you do interact with someone in person, it’s not a guarantee of connection. Maybe the other was distracted, had something on their mind, or simply wasn’t feeling in the mood to connect. In such cases, the in-person factor adds nothing to your social experience. 

On the flip side, a late-night phone call (just audio) with a best friend can be so much more fulfilling. Even a text message, arguably the farthest away from a five-senses interaction, can offer more connection than a bad in-person meetup. 

Thus, it can be argued that the key factors of fulfilling social interaction are context and authenticity, and not the medium of the interaction. One more interesting aspect to consider is how boomers, millennials, and Gen Z all seem to have different definitions of social contact. 

Many individuals born in the 50s and 60s often view in-person contact as being more legitimate than virtual interactions. Similarly, millennials don’t take such a hardline stand but aren’t as open as Gen-Z, who often find texting to be as relevant as real meetups.

Where Does In-Person Interaction Take the Lead?

Virtual interactions can fill a massive gap for our social needs. After all, according to the CDC, one in three adults in America feels lonely. Meanwhile, one in four adults report not having any social or emotional support. But there are some areas where they simply fall short. 

Crisis situations are a good example. Imagine you’re speaking to a friend, and it looks like they’re having a panic attack or an emotional breakdown. Being there for them in person is a massively different experience from exchanging words and empathetic expressions over a video call.

Similarly, any situation where non-verbal cues are critical is better handled in person. So, delicate conversations where the potential for misunderstandings is high or even high-level business negotiations. These are better handled in person than through virtual means. 

Likewise, any interaction where the primary focus is on emotions, such as birthday celebrations, humor, or romance, works far better in person. There’s nothing stopping you from using a virtual platform, of course. However, the experience is far limited due to just how big a role non-verbal cues play. 

To wrap things up, as much as a cop-out answer as it sounds, this is one of those situations where there isn’t a right or wrong answer. Both in-person and virtual socialization have their pros and cons. At the end of the day, it’s good to remember that what really matters is the intent and context behind the interaction.