A bad texter is someone with consistently poor texting habits, such as replying slowly, sending brief or disengaged messages, or ignoring messages without explanation. It is a general style, not a reaction to one particular person.
Texting now plays a central role in romantic communication and the courtship process.
It’s a convenient way to stay connected and gauge someone’s interest.
But every typed message carries a weight of interpretation. Is their lackluster texting just a personal style, or a sign they are not interested?
These quick exchanges have replaced traditional cues, like body language, that once helped people read interest and compatibility.
Christina recently went on a date with a charming man called Jordan, who she met at work and often sees in the office. They had a great time in person. Christina was hopeful about a second date. However, her excitement dwindled. Jordan’s text responses were often delayed, sometimes by hours or even days. Christina found herself constantly checking her phone, hoping for a reply, only to be met with silence. The silence stung. This pattern of intermittent communication left her wondering if he was genuinely interested. The uncertainty made her question whether his brief, delayed replies meant he was just uncomfortable texting, or genuinely not interested.
As we dissect Christina’s dilemma, let’s explore the differences between a “bad texter” and a potential lack of romantic interest.
Key Takeaways
- Bad Texter: Someone who is consistently slow, brief, or disengaged over text as a general personal style, not as a reaction to one specific relationship.
- Signs, Not Proof: Long delays, one-sided effort, and low-effort replies are worth weighing as a sustained pattern, not treated as proof on their own.
- Busyness Happens: Work, school, and other commitments genuinely limit how often someone can reply, so expecting instant responses is unrealistic.
- Silence Counts: Some fading interest shows up as an abrupt, unexplained stop in contact (“ghosting”) rather than a gradual pattern.
- Look Beyond Texting: Body language, willingness to make plans, and effort in person are often stronger indicators of interest than texting style alone.
- Ask Directly: An open, non-accusatory conversation about communication preferences resolves more uncertainty than continuing to guess.
- Timing Matters: A large randomized study found a first post-date text sent the next morning was read as more promising than one sent immediately or after two days.
Things to consider before jumping to conclusions
People have different communication styles
Not everyone communicates in the same way, so preferences and expectations around texting can vary.
Christina prefers lengthy messages and frequent, detailed text conversations. Jordan, though, prefers speaking in person or on the phone. She thought that might explain why his texts stayed short and infrequent.
Individuals have different approaches to staying connected. What feels unresponsive to one person can be perfectly normal for another.
Assuming everyone shares the same standard for responsiveness is what leads to misunderstandings.
Respecting these differences helps avoid misreading someone’s intentions from texting habits alone.
Texting isn’t everything
It’s easy to rely too heavily on texting to maintain a relationship. Texting is just one tool for staying connected, though, not the only sign of interest.
Judging interest from text alone oversimplifies things. It can easily lead to misconceptions.
People express interest in several ways:
- Face-to-face conversations
- Phone calls
- Shared activities
- Quality time together
Their body language and engagement across all of these channels build a fuller picture of how they really feel.
Distance changes this advice. Weighing texting against in-person cues only works when in-person contact is available.
A survey of 647 emerging adults in relationships (Holtzman et al., 2021) compared couples who lived apart with couples who lived nearby. More frequent, more responsive texting predicted higher satisfaction in long-distance relationships, but not in close ones. For close couples, voice-call frequency tracked satisfaction instead.
So when richer channels are off the table, slow or sparse texting deserves more weight, not less. The same reply gap that is easy to shrug off face to face carries more information across a distance.
They could genuinely be busy
They might simply be busy. A delayed response often reflects competing responsibilities, not a lack of interest.
During Christina's date with Jordan, he talked about his busy schedule, demanding job, and personal commitments.
Work, school, family, and other commitments can all limit how often someone can text.
Expecting an instant reply every time is unrealistic.
Both people benefit from talking openly about schedules and expectations, and understanding each other’s time constraints.
Are you asking for too much?
Check that your expectations match realistic norms:
- Response pace: Have realistic expectations about how quickly your partner can respond.
- Frustration: Overly demanding expectations create frustration and disappointment for both of you.
- Reality check: Ask whether most people would agree that what feels like “barely any contact” really is. Expecting a reply within the hour, for example, may not be reasonable.
- Pressure: Wanting constant updates or instant replies can create unnecessary pressure.
Healthy texting rests on understanding each other’s comfort levels and finding a middle ground.
Signs that they may not be interested
The following signs are just ideas, not proof. There could be many reasons someone shows these texting behaviors.
They take way too long to reply
Occasional delays are normal. But consistently taking an unusually long time to reply can signal fading interest.
Jordan’s excessive delays made Christina feel like he lacked enthusiasm. He repeatedly took days to respond. It looked like he wasn’t prioritizing their connection, or that his interest had faded.
Communication styles differ. But a repeated pattern of long, unexplained delays, with no reassurance offered, is a more meaningful sign of disinterest than a single slow reply.
You always lead the conversation
Consistently steering the conversation on your own can signal a lack of interest from the other person.
In balanced interactions, both people actively contribute to discussions and show mutual enthusiasm.
Christina consistently took the lead, texting Jordan first, asking questions, and keeping the dialogue flowing. This could indicate that Jordan:
- was not actively contributing to the relationship’s growth;
- may not have been as invested in maintaining their connection;
- was showing a lack of initiative or genuine curiosity.
This imbalance in conversational effort created a sense of one-sidedness in their relationship.
They don’t ask questions about your life
Meaningful conversations involve reciprocal interest and curiosity (Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004).
Jordan rarely asked about Christina’s day, thoughts, or feelings. That lack of curiosity suggested he wasn’t especially invested. Over time, his silence made Christina question whether the relationship had the depth and mutual engagement a budding romance usually involves.
A genuine connection involves curiosity about each other’s experiences, emotions, and aspirations.
One-sided curiosity, where your own attempts to share are never met with questions back, can signal a lack of emotional investment.
They never text you first
Initiating contact is one way people express interest. Always being the one to start conversations can be disheartening. It may hint at disinterest from the other side.
In healthy romantic dynamics, both people take the initiative to connect.
If you’re always the one reaching out, with no reciprocation, it may point to a lack of proactive interest on their part. That one-sidedness can leave you questioning how mutual the connection really is.
Their replies are very short/low-Effort
Frequent, low-effort replies can signal a lack of investment.
Meaningful conversations usually involve thoughtful responses. When replies consistently lack depth, it raises doubt about the other person’s commitment.
Imagine you ask someone you’re dating out for dinner on Friday.
A meaningful response might look like this.
- ‘Sure, Friday night works for me. Did you have a certain restaurant in mind?’ or
- ‘That sounds great. I’m looking forward to seeing you!’
A low-effort response, on the other hand, might look like this.
- ‘OK’ or
- ‘Whatever you want.’
Consistent one-word answers, minimal punctuation, or a lack of follow-up questions suggest low effort, and potential disinterest in keeping the conversation going.
They are usually active on their phone
Christina noticed that Jordan often checked his phone at work and when they were together. He only took seconds to write brief, unenthusiastic replies. That's telling. It suggested he wasn't prioritizing their conversation. Christina also noticed Jordan was active on WhatsApp and social media, but not replying to her messages. She began to wonder whether he was really invested in their connection. Excessive texting can also create a false sense of intimacy, though, standing in for real, in-person connection. Jordan may simply have preferred phone calls and in-person dates.
Why Texting Feels So Ambiguous
The everyday struggle to tell a bad texter from someone losing interest isn’t just a personal blind spot. Communication research explains why text is such an unclear signal.
Reducing Uncertainty Through Questions
Uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) holds that people getting to know someone want to reduce uncertainty about the other person’s thoughts and feelings. They actively ask questions, watch how the other person behaves, and disclose information about themselves, hoping to prompt disclosure back.
Texting is one such channel. Consider two replies to “Want to grab dinner Friday?”:
- Engaged reply: “Sure, Friday night works for me. Did you have a certain restaurant in mind?” The follow-up question invites disclosure and signals real engagement.
- Bare reply: “Sure.” It only confirms the plan and leaves the unspoken question, whether they want to keep talking, exactly where it started.
Neither reply is dishonest. Neither proves how the sender really feels. But the theory explains why two “yes” replies can carry such different weight as signals of interest.
The Hyperpersonal Model
Text strips out most of the cues that a face-to-face conversation carries: tone of voice, facial expression, posture, and the timing of pauses.
That absence cuts both ways.
Joseph Walther’s hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996) argues this. With fewer cues to manage, senders can be more selective about how they present themselves. Receivers, filling in the gaps left behind, sometimes idealize the sender rather than read them neutrally.
That has two sides. A slow, terse reply might genuinely reflect indifference. But a warm, well-crafted one might just as easily reflect careful self-presentation, rather than someone’s spontaneous, in-person manner.
Neither channel is more “honest” by default, and neither one is automatically the truer version of a person. That’s the theory’s central point.
Walther’s earlier social information processing theory (Walther, 1992) takes a more moderate position.
On this view, missing cues do not cap how personal a text relationship can become. They only slow the rate at which two people build an impression of each other. Given time, texters can still express warmth through words alone.
So a flat exchange early on is weak evidence. It may reflect how little contact there has been so far, not either person’s interest.
Media Richness Theory
Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) ranks communication channels by how much information they carry:
- Rich channels: Face-to-face conversation carries tone, expression, and immediate feedback.
- Lean channels: Text is comparatively lean, stripped down to words alone.
On this view, ambiguous texting is partly a property of the channel itself, not just the person using it. Text is simply a poorer vehicle for nuanced emotional information than a phone call or face-to-face chat, however interested either person is.
That’s not a small thing.
It’s one good reason to weigh someone’s texting against richer, in-person cues, rather than treating a single message as the whole story. Reading text messages in isolation misses most of the picture, however tempting a single message can feel to over-analyse.
These theories do not fully agree.
Media richness predicts that text under-communicates interest and warmth. The hyperpersonal model says the same missing cues can make a message seem more intense than an in-person impression would.
Both mechanisms are well supported in the wider research (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Walther, 1996). So a slow or terse reply is ambiguous in theory. That is not just your guesswork.
That is why texting should be weighed against a person’s wider behavior. Text alone cannot settle it.
How to get clarity
Have an open conversation
Openly discussing your expectations and their communication style can reveal a lot about their interest. Together, you can find a texting approach that works for you both. It’s worth the conversation.
Christina had a direct, respectful talk with Jordan about their communication preferences. She shared her feelings. She also asked about his expectations. That single conversation opened up both their texting habits and their intentions for the relationship.
Approach these conversations with a non-accusatory tone, and a willingness to listen.
Below are a couple of examples of how to start this conversation:
- “I wanted to discuss our texting habits and make sure we’re on the same page about communication. I tend to be more of a frequent texter, but I’ve noticed your responses can be pretty short at times. How do you prefer to handle texting on a normal day?”
- “I really enjoy our conversations, but sometimes your brief texts make me unsure if you’re interested in keeping the dialogue going. I’d love it if we could share what works best for each of us so there’s no confusion. What are your thoughts?”
Pay attention to other signs of interest
Texting habits are not the sole indicator of someone’s interest. Look wider.
Paying attention to their broader behavior and interactions gives a fuller picture of their feelings.
Assess their:
- non-verbal cues, such as body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, and overall engagement during face-to-face interactions;
- willingness to spend time with you, engage in worthwhile conversations, and show affection;
- efforts to make you feel valued.
They consistently show affection, initiate plans, and make you feel appreciated? Then slow texting responses may not signal disinterest at all.
It may be that their love language is different to your own.
For example:
- Remembers the details: They check in on things you’ve mentioned. For example, “I know you have that big presentation at work today. Hope it went amazing!”
- Plans around you: They initiate date ideas based on things you’ve mentioned liking, like a weekend kayaking trip since you shared your love of paddling.
If their texting habits are paired with a lack of effort elsewhere, though, it could signal fading interest.
For example:
- Shows up late or cancels: Frequently showing up late for plans, or canceling last minute.
- Rarely initiates: Rarely being the one to initiate dates or conversations, always leaving you to make the effort.
- Forgets what matters to you: Forgetting important events, milestones, or details you have shared about loved ones.
Understand the times they are busy
Respectful communication means recognizing each other’s time constraints. Be understanding when a reply isn’t immediate.
Knowing your partner’s schedule gives valuable context for their texting habits.
Say their Monday mornings are hectic, or their weekday evenings are booked with a hobby. You can anticipate delays during those windows.
That awareness also helps you plan deeper, more meaningful conversations for when you both have free time.
Try a weekend brunch date, or a call on a quiet weeknight.
Working around busier periods, and connecting during the downtime, shows consideration without losing quality interaction.
Suggest alternative communication styles
Suggesting other channels, like a phone call, a video chat, or meeting in person, can open things up.
Understanding each other’s preferences helps both of you communicate in a way that feels natural.
Jordan preferred phone calls to in-person meetings, so Christina suggested scheduling regular calls. It helped them connect more deeply. Their calls also revealed more of Jordan's real enthusiasm than his texts ever had, bypassing texting's limits entirely.
Expressing a preference for face-to-face contact can also help gauge their willingness to prioritize that connection.
Switching channels is not a guaranteed fix, though.
In an experiment, Ramirez and Zhang (2007) randomly varied how long unacquainted pairs interacted by text before either continuing online or meeting face to face. Pairs who stayed text-only reported the highest intimacy and attraction of any condition.
Among pairs who did meet, switching early modestly improved ratings. Switching after a longer stretch of text-only contact dampened them.
One plausible reason is that a text-built impression grows more idealized the longer it develops, leaving more room for disappointment in person. Proposing a call or meeting is still reasonable, but doing it relatively early carries less risk of anticlimax.
Real daters also rarely make a single switch. Interviews with 37 mobile-dating-app users (Coduto & Fox, 2024) found that people layer channels instead, each for a goal:
- Social-media follow: Verifies a match’s identity.
- Texting: Makes plans.
- Video or phone call: Reduces uncertainty about chemistry before meeting.
The next channel depends on what they want to resolve. There is no fixed sequence.
When the Answer Is Silence
Sometimes the most informative moment isn’t a question that gets answered. It’s a silence that never does.
As therapist Esther Perel observes on her podcast Where Should We Begin?, a promising connection more often ends in silence than in an honest conversation. One side simply stops writing.
Perel suggests the sheer volume of choice in app-based dating makes that quiet fade easier to sit with. There is always, as she puts it, “the next potential candidate” to look toward.
She describes app dating as having a “transactional nature.” The anticipation of meeting someone new, she suggests, can stand in for processing that disappointment.
Men who have experienced this describe it in similar terms. In a published qualitative study of men’s online-dating experiences (Fullwood et al., 2019), one participant, identified as Lucas (35), said this.
“You might be messaging someone and you think it’s going really well, and you think the conversation’s going well, and they just disappear. I guess they didn’t think the same.”
Another participant in the same study, identified as Bertie (50), said he preferred even an unambiguous rejection to that kind of silence.
“Most of them you wouldn’t strike up a conversation, but every now and then one would reply and say, ‘Thanks for writing but I’m not interested,’ which is nice because 9 out of 10 weren’t doing that.”
Their accounts are a reminder that some fading interest never turns into a readable pattern at all. It just stops.
Critical Evaluation
The signs above are ideas worth weighing, not proof. Recent research adds real nuance, and complicates parts of that advice.
Contemporary Research
The strongest recent evidence concerns when, not how much, someone texts.
Timing, it turns out, carries real weight. Teichmann et al. (2026) ran a large randomized experiment with 543 heterosexual participants. Each imagined receiving a first post-date text immediately, the next morning, or two days later. They then rated their romantic interest.
Texting the next morning produced more interest than texting immediately or waiting two days. Because participants were randomly assigned to a timing condition, this supports a genuinely causal claim, in a literature that is otherwise almost entirely correlational.
That is a rare thing in this field.
It also complicates a common assumption. A faster reply doesn’t straightforwardly mean more interest. Both extremes carried a cost in the study, for different reasons:
- Immediate text: The sender seemed needy.
- Long delay: The sender seemed unreliable.
Silence tells its own story too.
It can be a communicative act, not just an absence of one.
LeFebvre et al. (2019) gave 99 emerging adults open-ended questionnaires about ghosting, from both sides: going silent and being left waiting.
People who ghosted gave five recurring reasons. These included avoiding an uncomfortable conversation and simply losing interest. Abrupt, unexplained withdrawal emerged as a recognizable, patterned strategy. Mediated communication makes it unusually easy to choose.
Some fading interest, in other words, shows up as a sudden stop. It isn’t always a gradual pattern of slow replies, and a checklist built around watching a pattern develop can miss it, or arrive too late.
Interviews with eight heterosexual men about online dating (Fullwood et al., 2019) describe the same thing from the receiving end.
Conversations that “just disappear” mid-exchange were a recurring, taxing experience. Even a curt rejection was preferable to silence, because it at least resolved the uncertainty.
Both studies are qualitative and rely on retrospective self-report. They show recognizable experiences, not how common ghosting is.
A third study asks a different question.
It complicates whose texting is even being read accurately. A survey of 302 romantically partnered undergraduates (Patel et al., 2022) linked attachment patterns to messaging:
- Higher anxiety: People who fear a partner’s unavailability or rejection wanted more contact than they received and replied faster than partners did.
- Higher avoidance: People uncomfortable with closeness or dependence wanted less contact than they received and replied more slowly than partners did.
That asymmetry matters.
Response-time expectations are not a neutral, shared standard. They are shaped by stable individual differences. A reader’s own attachment style (their habitual way of relating in close relationships) can colour how alarming an ordinary reply gap feels. That holds regardless of anything the other person did.
What the Evidence Doesn’t Yet Show
Five limits qualify how far this evidence stretches:
- Thin direct support: Only one study backs the claim that reciprocal curiosity signals interest (Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004), and it looked at established couples, not early texting.
- Heterosexual samples: The dating interviews (Fullwood et al., 2019) and the timing experiment (Teichmann et al., 2026) used only heterosexual participants.
- Student samples: The attachment and long-distance surveys (Patel et al., 2022; Holtzman et al., 2021) drew on undergraduates, a young, highly educated slice of the dating population.
- Imagined scenario: The timing experiment used a hypothetical first-date text, not real relationships, so real early dating is untested.
- Self-report: The ghosting and interview studies rely on retrospective accounts, not participants’ actual message logs.
Extending the curiosity finding to early texting is reasonable, but it remains unverified. Whether the same signals hold for LGBTQ+ relationships, other cultures, or older or non-college-educated adults is also an open question.
A natural next step is a study that tracks real message logs alongside people’s in-the-moment reactions to them.
FAQs:
Why are they bad at texting but good at communicating in person?
Texting doesn’t always reflect someone’s true communication skills or level of interest.
Some people who shine face-to-face struggle to convey the same warmth through text.
Texting can feel impersonal to them.
They express emotions and thoughts more naturally when talking in person. Tone of voice and body language do a lot of the work that words alone have to carry over text.
Others simply dislike texting, finding it tedious or slow.
Typing speed, or a preference for real-time conversation like a phone call, can also play a role, and none of that says anything about how they feel about you.
Either way, how someone communicates in person is often a stronger sign of their interest than their texting habits. Pay attention to their body language, tone, and how present they are when you’re actually together.
Is being a bad texter always a red flag?
Poor texting habits can be frustrating, but they are not always a red flag. Some people simply prefer different communication styles, or don’t have much time to text regularly.
Texting habits are shaped by personality, lifestyle, busy schedules, and communication preferences.
Avoid jumping to conclusions based on texting alone. Look at the broader context: their actions, and other signs of interest, matter more than any single reply.
If someone consistently makes an effort to connect in other ways, being a bad texter usually isn’t a cause for concern.
However, poor texting paired with a lack of effort elsewhere is more telling. That combination can point to disinterest. Or it may simply be a mismatch in communication styles worth naming directly, rather than guessing at.
I’ve been called a bad texter–what should I do?
If you’ve been told you’re a bad texter, have an open, honest conversation about both of your preferred communication styles.
Listen first. Acknowledge their perspective, and share your willingness to improve.
Use their feedback to find common ground. Ask specifically what they find challenging, or what would make texting more enjoyable for them. That proactive step shows you value their feelings, rather than dismissing the complaint.
Then adjust. If they’d like more frequent or detailed replies, try meeting them there. Or suggest a phone call or video chat instead, to complement your texts, especially if texting itself is genuinely not your natural mode of communication.
Either way, treat the feedback as useful information about how to stay connected, not as a verdict on the relationship itself.
References
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
Boley, M. (2023, April 10). “I’m Bad at Texting” — Is It Legit or a Red Flag? – Love and Other Things – Medium. Medium. https://medium.com/love-and-other-things/im-bad-at-texting-is-it-legit-or-a-red-flag-b4666ec68a3f
Chet. (2022, April 27). “Bad texter” or just not that into you? Get the Guy. https://matthewhussey.com/blog/bad-texter-or-just-not-that-into-you/
Coduto, K. D., & Fox, J. (2024). Romantic relationship initiation and escalation through mobile dating apps: Affordances, modality weaving, and paradoxical beliefs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(11), 3337–3358. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241265064
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Fullwood, C., Boultwood, E., & Chadwick, D. (2019). “Thanks for writing, but I’m not interested”: A qualitative analysis of men’s experiences of online dating. In Design, User Experience, and Usability. Application Domains (pp. 287–302). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23538-3_22
Hardwick, C. (2023, June 15). Is He Really A Bad Texter Or Is He Just Not Into You? Bolde. https://www.bolde.com/really-bad-texter-not-into-you/
Hoff, V. (2022, August 27). The psychology of being a bad texter. TheThirty. https://thethirty.whowhatwear.com/bad-texter
Holtzman, S., Kushlev, K., Wozny, A., & Godard, R. (2021). Long-distance texting: Text messaging is linked with higher relationship satisfaction in long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(12), 3543–3565. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211043296
LeFebvre, L. E., Allen, M., Rasner, R. D., Garstad, S., Wilms, A., & Parrish, C. (2019). Ghosting in emerging adults’ romantic relationships: The digital dissolution disappearance strategy. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 39(2), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236618820519
Patel, P. Y., Mahar, E. A., & Webster, G. D. (2022). Adult romantic attachment, electronic messaging, and relationship quality. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(3), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0060
Perel, E. Where Should We Begin? [YouTube]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvy9Il-2Kc
Quinn, J. (2023, May 15). How much of communication is nonverbal? | UT Permian Basin Online. The University of Texas Permian Basin | UTPB. https://online.utpb.edu/about-us/articles/communication/how-much-of-communication-is-nonverbal/
Ramirez, A., Jr., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74(3), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701543493
Ruby. (2023, March 13). Is she bad at texting or not interested in you? Good Gentleman. https://goodgentleman.com/is-she-bad-at-texting-or-not-interested-in-you/
Sprecher, S., & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(6), 857–877. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.6.857.54803
Steele, J. (2021, March 8). Spotting The Difference Between A Bad Texter And Someone Who Just Isn’t Interested. Thisiswhyimsingle. https://www.thisiswhyimsingle.com/relationships/spotting-the-difference-between-a-bad-texter-and-someone-who-just-isnt-interested/
Teichmann, L., Petrowsky, H. M., Boecker, L., Soliman, M., & Loschelder, D. D. (2026). How the timing of texting triggers romantic interest after the first date: A curvilinear U-shaped effect and its underlying mechanisms. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251377184
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
Wrench, J. S. (n.d.). Chapter 1: Introduction to Human Communication. Pressbooks. https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/interpersonalcommunication/chapter/1/
