Why Better Communication Isn’t Always Better: Tradeoffs in Clarity, Support, and Trust

Abstract: A large body of research offers evidence-based guidance on how to improve communication, including asking direct questions, listening attentively, structuring interaction, or turning to AI as a communicative partner. These practices can improve clarity, efficiency, or support. But, as this symposium will show, they may also introduce social and relational tradeoffs that shape how communication is experienced and interpreted. Langdon and colleagues examine how the format of requests shapes responses, showing that binary yes/no questions provide clear, actionable information but obscure important nuances in commitment that can matter for relationships over time. Ren and colleagues focus on listening behaviors, demonstrating that high-quality listening makes speakers feel heard while also leading them to infer greater agreement than actually exists, undermining trust when disagreement later emerges. Harrington and Nordgren examine structured versus unstructured communication, showing that structured interaction improves efficiency and coordination but feels less authentic and enjoyable, making it less appealing despite its benefits. Finally, Shi and Goldenberg compare emotional disclosure to humans versus AI, showing that while human interaction feels more emotionally supportive, it also feels more judgmental, leading people to sometimes prefer AI because it feels safer. Taken together, these papers show that there is no single best way to communicate. Communication choices that help achieve one goal (e.g., efficiency, clarity, or support) can create tradeoffs for others (e.g., trust, authenticity, or relationship quality). The symposium highlights the importance of matching communication choices to the social and informational outcomes that matter most in a given interaction.

Keywords: communication, trust, consent, listening, emotions, AI