Why are electronic messages prone to misinterpretation?

When it comes to business technology, emails and other electronic messages (texts, IMs, chats, etc.) are certainly popular. They often feel efficient to write and straightforward to read. But they can create problems, especially in work settings: namely, the problem of misinterpretation. Perhaps it’s because we don’t sense the other person’s gestures, emotional cues, cadence, or tone of voice. Whatever the reason, words frequently seem prone to misinterpretation when seen on a screen.

Rest assured, you’re not alone if you ever felt your electronic messages have been taken out of context or misunderstood. The question is, why does electronic messaging present problems of interpretation not typically found in face-to-face meetings? Moreover, how can we overcome some of those problems so our words aren’t misinterpreted—for instance, when we write an email?

Now, if you just want a quick answer to that last question, here it is. In your email, you can help prevent misinterpretation by stating right away (1) the purpose of the message, (2) what exactly you want the reader to know, and (3) what actions, if any, the reader should take next. Then, add any further details to the message, as needed.

For a more complete answer, you can read the following interview I led with an expert on this topic. Meet Brian Larson, a professor who teaches professional, technical, and legal communication.

Brian Larson and relevance theory

Professor Brian Larson, who worked in law and legal communication for several years before teaching full-time, is known for applying a framework in psychology and linguistics called “relevance theory.” Relevance theory is a “pragmatic” framework, which means it examines how we use language in different ways and contexts to make communication valuable or meaningful to others.

So, what insights can relevance theory give us about reading and writing electronic messages like emails, particularly to prevent misinterpretation? Check out my interview with Brian Larson below.

Interview

Question: I wanted to start by asking about face-to-face meetings versus electronic messages. From a psychological and linguistic standpoint, what makes these two modes of communication so different?

Brian Larson: Well, let’s start with the first mode of communication: the face-to-face meeting.

Imagine you’re a staffer in a company sitting in a meeting with other staff and more senior executives. During the meeting, you speak up on a topic in your area of focus. In response, you receive a question from one of the execs. This exec is someone above you in the “chain of command,” but not someone you work with regularly. (In fact, you’re pretty sure they don’t know your name.)

Let’s assume the question is, “Does company policy allow us to produce widgets in our division?” At the moment the exec asks that question, they feel motivated to hear an answer—perhaps a particular answer. Because of their business goals, they have some facts about the situation. They may even have feelings about the question. All these things are ‘top of mind’ for them.

Question: ‘Top of mind’—meaning those things are preoccupying their thoughts and attention at the moment?

Brian Larson: Yes. In the language of relevance theory, we would say that these are things in their cognitive environment. If you know the exec fairly well, or if you know from the company’s context what kinds of things matter most there, you can probably guess what is in the exec’s cognitive environment. You are—again, in the language of relevance theory—imputing a cognitive environment to the exec. In other words, you are trying to read their mind.

If you can answer the question in the meeting, you will. And there will likely be no confusion about your answer, because the exec’s actual cognitive environment and the cognitive environment you impute to them are likely pretty similar. The subject of the question is ‘top of mind’ for everyone in the meeting. The exec’s question followed a comment you just made. You may be able to sense from the exec’s tone of voice and body language what their emotions and goals are surrounding the question.

Question: So an advantage of a face-to-face meeting is that we likely share similar goals and feelings, because we’re conversing together in a shared context (or “imputed cognitive environment”). What happens to those goals and feelings when we leave that shared context and communicate electronically instead?

Brian Larson: Okay, let’s continue with the same example and look at the next mode of communication: electronic messages or emails. Imagine that you don’t know the answer to the exec’s question. So, you say, “I’ll have to check on that and get back to you.”

If you leave the meeting at its conclusion, run back to your desk, and find the answer, you may want to send the exec an email right away. Assuming the exec gets back to their desk a bit later and is still thinking hard about the question they asked you, your email may be the first thing they read. Again, there will likely be no confusion about your answer, because the exec’s cognitive environment has not changed much, and you don’t expect it to.

Thus, you might write an email like this:

Question: I suppose the ‘Email 1’ example could make sense as long as the exec saw it right after the meeting. But what if the exec doesn’t see the email till much later?

Brian Larson: That’s right! So, let’s imagine you don’t send your email right after the meeting, because you have to run down some information to answer the exec’s question. You figure that’s fine, because the exec is off to watch their kid play in a lacrosse game that afternoon, and they don’t read email during kids’ events.

Instead, you send the exec an email at 7:00 a.m. the next day, after others have responded to your queries. In the meantime, you don’t know that the exec’s kid got a nasty broken leg during yesterday’s game, and they were at the emergency room and hospital much of the afternoon and evening.

The next morning at 9:00, after dropping off the injured kid at school, the exec returns to the office, confronted by about 100 emails, including yours. What’s in their cognitive environment? Do they remember what question they asked you or why? Do they even remember your name? Less than 24 hours after the meeting and the posing of the question, ‘Email 1’ seems like a pretty poor response. It assumes that certain things are ‘top of mind’ in the exec’s cognitive environment. When in fact, that individual is pressed by many other things now.

Worse yet, imagine that three or four weeks down the road, the exec wants to see how you answered that question and whether you offered a rationale for your answer. Would they even be able to find your email? If so, what value, meaning, or relevance would it offer them?

Question: Which brings us to the heart of the problem with electronic messages. What can we do to make sure our emails have value, meaning, or relevance to readers? In other words, what would a more relevant email look like?

Brian Larson: The solution to this problem is to write emails that do the following in the first paragraph:

(1) Set the stage to make any necessary assumptions, goals, thoughts, and feelings clear and accessible to the reader, including why they wanted you to write this email.

This motivates them to read the email and reduces the frustration of not being sure what it’s about.

(2) Briefly say what they will learn from this email.

This further motivates them.

(3) Briefly say what you expect them to do, if anything.

This focuses them on their goals so that they can act (or direct you to act). However, you should not wait to say this until the end of the email—put it in the first paragraph. Forcing your reader to read through three or four paragraphs of text to learn what you want to do is foolish. If the email requires no action, you can say, “This is just an update and requires no further action from you.”

So, in contrast to the ‘Email 1’ example above, you might write an email that goes like this:

Also, in this ‘Email 2’ example, note that you acknowledge the exec’s feelings in your answer, indicating you have probably done your best to find the answer that they wanted.

Question: I agree, the ‘Email 2’ example is much more relevant. But why didn’t you put the answer in the subject line?

Brian Larson: The only reason we don’t recommend putting the actual answer in the email’s subject line—e.g., “Corporate policy does not allow our division to produce widgets”—is that you might want to break it more gently. In this case, the reader does not need to go beyond the first paragraph, unless they want to see the substantiation that you provide for your answer (the “[Details]” part), whether that’s one more paragraph or ten.

---

Thanks to Brian Larson for sharing his insights on how to write relevant emails. To reach Brian Larson or read more about his research, visit his academic site: Rhetoricked.

Also, if you have any additional insights about writing relevant emails, feel free to leave a comment below, or check out other Professional Topics on this site.