‘It's really hard to be a jerk when you’re sitting on someone's couch’: preferences for discussing science and religion online versus offline

ABSTRACT

Science and religion are important topics that people have opportunities to discuss in both online and offline contexts. Why do people prefer one communication mode over the other? Analyzing interviews with 45 adults from across the United States, we look at why people prefer communicating online versus offline about science and religion. Findings show that characteristics unique to either mode of communication (asynchronous communication, detachment, visual and social cues) are key factors in shaping people's preferences. We highlight principal differences in how these factors appear across science and religion. We also find that some people's preference toward online or offline communication depends on the context, such as the focus of the discussion or the relationship with the interlocutor. Understanding people's reasons for choosing to communicate about science and religion online versus offline can support related communities in creating more effective discussion options in the future.

KEYWORDS:

• Science and religion
• online discussions
• online–offline comparison
• interviews
• communication mode preference

The Internet has become an ever-growing resource for discussions about countless topics including potentially contentious ones, such as science and religion. Early research indicated optimism for more accessible and effective discussions about controversial domains (Schäfer, 2012 gives an overview of early opinions for science communication online). The Internet introduced new characteristics to discussion allowing it to be faster, geographically unbound, both synchronous and asynchronous, and among a larger number of people than was previously possible. Scholars predicted that with the Internet reaching a wider audience that included historically marginalized voices, communication would become more democratic and effective (Dahlberg, 2001; Norris & Norris, 2002; Schäfer, 2012). Much research has looked at whether these predictions bore fruit through the analysis of online discussions (studies such as Barnidge, 2017; Gerhards & Schäfer, 2010; Santana, 2014; Settle, 2018 often find that they are far from democratic or effective), but much less work has compared online and offline modes of communication. That is the gap in the literature that this paper addresses.

Discussions about science and religion offer a particularly interesting comparison, as they are often seen in conflict with each other, but in fact provide a unique way for people to understand and assign meaning to the world (Evans & Evans, 2008). The United States presents a unique context to examine science and religion, as previous studies show that Christian Americans see more conflict between science and their religion than most other countries (Mitchell, 2020). Additionally, Americans are more religious than their counterparts in many other nations (Evans, 2018; Fahmy, 2018). While less research has been conducted regarding online discussions about science and religion, there is a clear trend that more people are moving online to communicate and seek information about both topics (Besley & Hill, 2020; Hargittai et al., 2018; Kross et al., 2021).

Concurrently, research has shown that more and more people are taking conscious breaks from digital media, particularly to support their well-being (Nguyen, 2021; Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022). This suggests that while people may indeed prefer online communication, offline communication will remain relevant even in a hyperconnected world. In fact, some research continues to show a preference for offline communication (Baym et al., 2004; Gruber et al., 2022; Lee, 2010; Robinson & Stubberud, 2012; Sharma et al., 2022; Vermeulen et al., 2018). Given these trends, when might people prefer to use online versus offline modes of communication to discuss science and religion? To address this question, we conducted interviews with 45 adults from across the United States about their experiences with discussing science and religion including questions about their communication mode preference.

Studying discussions of science and religion in the digital age

We draw on research from several domains to guide our work. Scholarship that looks at online discussion about contentious topics—mostly concentrated on politics—helps contextualize our focus on two such topics. While not much work has compared online and offline conversations, we review the few studies that have done so. Finally, we make the case for comparing the two topics of science and religion as an especially helpful way to examine online versus offline communication preferences.

Over time, communication scholars have investigated factors that cause individuals to engage in discussions online and offline, and why they might choose to have certain discussions in different spheres or on different platforms. Scholars refer to affordances theory when examining such factors, arguing that affordances such as persistence, visibility, editability, and association affect how people engage on social media (Ronzhyn et al., 2023). A similar principle drives the present research as we examine the differences between online and offline communication, and how their affordances shape people's preferences for engaging online versus offline.

Online and offline discussions have unique characteristics that make for different experiences. Offline discussions are often oral, synchronous, and accompanied by visual and social cues, whereas online discussions are often written, frequently asynchronous, and may occur with anonymous or pseudonymous participants (Bryant & Oliver, 2008; Lieberman & Schroeder, 2020). Research has found that people can favor characteristics of both so there is no obvious answer as to which mode people would prefer when discussing science or religion (Chung, 2013; Gruber et al., 2022).

In this paper, we specifically compare people's preferences between the two modes of communication and explore the reasons behind said preferences, which few studies have done. While a study with older adults illustrated their strong preference for face-to-face communication, the few who favored online interactions cited the asynchronous nature as useful in crafting their messages and responding when they had time (Yuan et al., 2016). A study of adolescents also indicated a preference for face-to-face communication, particularly when sharing emotions (Vermeulen et al., 2018), with a study of teens echoing this preference for deeper information exchanges (Agosto et al., 2012). Many of the participants in the project by Vermeulen and colleagues (2018) highlighted that they appreciated the rich nonverbal cues in face-to-face communication and despite the ability to craft messages more carefully in an asynchronous, online environment, they still preferred in-person interactions to share emotions.

A 2016 study (Goby, 2002) discovered that all participants favored face-to-face communication when interacting with a family member. When they preferred online communication in other scenarios, they appreciated its anonymity and asynchrony, which allowed them to craft messages and responses more deliberately. While this study suggests that the potential for anonymity explains people's preferences to communicate online, additional work highlights how anonymity can increase incivility (Santana, 2014). Barnidge (2017) illustrated that people perceive more political disagreement on social media than in face-to-face settings.

Additional scholarship supports the idea that online communication can supplement, but not completely replace, offline interactions (Campbell, 2012; Goby, 2002; Gruber et al., 2022). Recent research has explored people's choices to disconnect from online modes of communication, which in turn can support their overall well-being (Nguyen, 2021). Other research illustrated that some people have disconnected from devices to spend more intentional time with family and friends (Jorge, 2019). This increase in conscious breaks from digital media to spend time offline highlights the need to understand both online and offline modes of communication.

Concerning broader communication theory, Nguyen and colleagues' (2012) systematic review comparing self-disclosure in online and offline contexts tested five communication theories. Although factors like mode of communication, relationship with the interlocutor, and context of the interaction influenced the extent of self-disclosure, it was not consistently greater in online environments than offline. Additionally, there was not enough empirical evidence to support any of the five theories over the others. Despite some communication theories and prior research favoring self-disclosure in one mode of communication or another, the review reveals how the overall inconsistency demonstrates the need for more research in this area. In particular, people's preferences may vary based on context, which research comparing different domains like science and religion can address.

While there is considerable literature about online and offline modes of communication, it is often focused on how the two interrelate rather than whether people prefer one over the other. Such research has looked at how the two influence each other, especially in the realm of politics (Baumgartner & Morris, 2010; Hampton et al., 2017; Nah et al., 2006; Theocharis & Lowe, 2016; Yamamoto & Nah, 2018). Incivility and dissent in political discussions have been especially researched, including studies that demonstrate how cross-cutting online political discussions can lead to offline political participation (Lane et al., 2017). In the realm of science, Anderson et al. (2014) found that exposure to uncivil comments online can lead to increased polarization about a controversial scientific topic, namely nanotechnology. This finding is particularly relevant to our research on science and religion, as Anderson's study emphasizes that individuals with strong religiosity tend to have heightened risk perceptions around nanotechnology.

Thus, while there is some existing work on online versus offline communication preferences, this has not been applied to the potentially contentious topics of science and religion. Most existing studies tend to examine only one topic independently (Ogan et al., 2008 is an exception). Ronzhyn et al. (2023) also reported that political participation is the most widely studied area related to social media affordance theory application. A literature review of online communication regarding such controversial topics as climate change shows that despite its ability to promote effective, democratic debate, the Internet falls short compared to the offline environment (Schäfer, 2012).

Very little research about online and offline preferences focuses on science or religion. Studies from Campbell (2012), Larsen (2001), and Smith et al. (2023) are exceptions, though they are focused exclusively on the realm of religion. Campbell's literature review (2012) discovered that online religious communities often reflect their offline counterparts and that online community can substitute, but not replace, offline church involvement. Indeed, a 2023 Pew study found that Americans who attend worship services both virtually and in person overwhelmingly prefer attending in person, and those who do attend face-to-face feel more connected to their fellow worshippers (Smith et al., 2023). Larsen (2001) and Smith et al. (2023) both contribute to this field with quantitative results from Pew surveys, yet lack qualitative nuances of participants’ communication preferences. Although often contentious topics that are typically viewed in conflict with each other, science and religion offer a unique way for people to assign meaning to the world (Evans & Evans, 2008). These previous studies indicate that the nature of these topics could shape people's preference for discussing them online versus offline.

Even in a hyperconnected world that continues to move online, it is apparent that there is still a draw to discussions offline (Gruber et al., 2022), and it is thus important to understand people's preferences for discussing controversial topics in an attempt to offer optimal settings for such conversations. Accordingly, the paper's research question is:

RQ1: What are the key factors that shape people’s preferences for online versus offline communication about science versus religion?

Methods

Data collection

We used semi-structured, in-depth interviews to understand why people may prefer to discuss science and religion online versus offline. We interviewed 45 adults from across the United States between October-December, 2021. We recruited participants using multiple approaches including the online recruiting service Prolific, posts on social media feeds and in communities such as Facebook Groups (not on topics specifically related to science or religion so as not to bias toward people especially invested in these topics), directly contacting people in our personal networks, and snowballing from existing participants. Interviews lasted on average 47 minutes (ranges: 21–80 min; shorter interviews were generally with people who were not very active online). With permission, we recorded each interview, which was then transcribed. The study met the university's ethical guidelines for conducting research.

We gathered information about respondents’ preferences for communicating online versus offline about science and religion in the following way. We started the interview by asking participants about their general participation in online communities. We then asked a set of questions about people's engagement with the topic of religion, followed by the same set of questions about their engagement concerning science. We primed participants for the questions on religion by asking them first about their religious and spiritual affiliation, if any: ‘Do you consider yourself religious or spiritual?’ In both the religion and science sections of the interview, after discussing their general experiences with the topic, we specifically asked participants if they preferred communicating about the topic (i.e., first religion then science) online versus offline, to answer the research question for this paper. We did so with the following question: ‘Do you feel more comfortable communicating about religion/science with someone offline or online?’ We introduced both science and religion without defining the terms, allowing respondents to interpret them as they saw fit and respond accordingly. We ended each interview with brief demographic questions to collect the respondent's age, state of residence, location type (big city, small city, suburban, or rural area), educational background (including any formal study of religion or science), employment status, and job type (noting employment in a religious or scientific setting).

It is important to note that when discussing science and religion, we always asked about the topics separately. We did not explicitly ask participants to discuss science and religion together nor did we ask them to compare their preferences across the two domains. Some chose to do so on their own during the interview. Our aim was for participants to think about the two domains and express their preferences for each separately, which we could then subsequently compare in our analysis. By asking about these topics separately, we reduced the likelihood that their answers about one topic would be influenced by the other, enabling us to gather clearer in-depth answers about both. Comparisons we make about participants’ preferences between online and offline modes of communication across science and religion in the findings section are based on our analyses of the interview data.

Sample characteristics

Of the 45 adults we interviewed, 29 were women. Ages ranged from 23 to 75 (median: 42). The sample skewed educated, with the majority of participants having completed a college or graduate degree (37), five having completed some college and the remaining three having completed no more than a high school degree. Of the participants with at least some college education, 11 people majored in a science field, and an additional ten at least studied some science in college. Twelve people studied at least some religion in college, with three of those people obtaining an undergraduate or graduate-level degree in religion.

In our sample, 29 identified as religious or spiritual, and 14 of those people reported actively participating in their religion. Of those 29 religious or spiritual participants, 27 were affiliated with a specific religious tradition, with Christians making up the largest group (20 people). Nine of those Christians specified a Protestant denomination and three identified as Catholic. Our sample included six people who identified as Jewish, and one participant as Muslim. A few participants said they were spiritual, but not religious, and therefore did not specify a particular denomination.

In terms of science interests and views, based on preferences expressed during the interviews, 41 participants indicated an interest in science, and 24 of those reported a very high interest. Additionally, we asked participants about their interest in specific science-related topics or issues, to which they expressed a wide range of curiosities, including topics such as evolution, space, health, renewable energy, and epidemiology. Within these topics, they held diverse viewpoints, particularly around health and epidemiology topics.

Nearly all of the participants used at least one social media platform, although their levels of usage varied widely. On average, participants used three social media platforms. The most popular platforms were Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, but on the whole, interviewees mentioned 16 different social media.

The sample included participants living across a range of locations, with 14 people living in a big city, 15 in the suburbs, 14 in a small city, and two in a rural area. Thirty-four participants were White, four Asian, three Black, two Hispanic/Latino, one Middle Eastern, and one Native American. Most participants (35) were working, with ten people unemployed or retired. Among the employed participants, nine worked in a scientific field (for example, in a research lab or as a university instructor) and two participants reported working in a religious occupation (both as Protestant pastors).

Analytical and coding procedures

To analyze our interviews, we used independent, open coding (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2015). We read through an initial set of interviews identifying themes inspired by the literature, such as nonverbal cues offline and incivility online. As initial themes emerged, we developed a set of codes for the interviews we had not yet coded. We adjusted our coding scheme as we analyzed more interviews to account for any new themes that emerged and recoded previous interviews accordingly. We mention age and gender when referring to people's comments so as to show the diversity of perspectives we are conveying and also to help the reader connect quotes from the same person.

Findings

Our research question examines key factors that shape people's preferences in communicating online or offline about science and religion. We present the findings by the three main themes that emerged in response to the question about respondents’ preferences for online versus offline discussion: online preference, offline preference, or context-dependent preference, i.e., ‘it depends.’ For each, we discuss the reasons people gave for their choice. We then provide a topical comparison, exploring any differences between people's preferences for discussing science and religion. Table 1 provides an overview of the main themes, reasons, and topical comparison.

Table 1. Overview of preference themes and sub-themes.

Preference	Themes	Sub-themes/explanation	Science versus religion comparison
Online	Asynchrony	Can research more, cite sources, craft a better response	Both
	Detachment	Can walk away if no longer interested in engaging	More with religion
	Social media affordances	Specific platform features allow for more anonymity, privacy, and control	More with science
Offline	Verbal and non-verbal cues	Seeing body language and hearing voice allows for comfort, intimacy, and effective conversations with less conflict and more learning	More with religion
	Avoiding online discussions	Incivility, conflict, and permanence of content; anonymity online permits heightened aggression	More with religion
Context-dependent	Focus of discussion	Personal experiences or opinions offline, factual discussions online	More with religion
	Relationships	Avoiding conversations with family online and offline, discussions with known contacts offline	More with religion

More than half of respondents (26 of 45) expressed a preference for communicating about religion offline instead of online with a small number stating that they had no preference either way. The situation is different for the domain of science where close to half (20 of 45) of respondents reported being equally comfortable with discussing it online or offline. Among those who did express a preference one way or the other, offline was more popular compared to prioritizing online discussions. Women and those who are religious were more likely to prefer offline communication about religion than their counterparts. There were no other noticeable demographic differences in respondents’ preferences. We unpack these findings below.

Online discussion preference

For those respondents who preferred communicating about science or religion online, asynchrony, the ability to detach, and social media functionalities were the most common reasons. The majority of participants framed their preferences within the context of social media, although a few situated their preferences within the broader online environment.

Asynchrony

When respondents indicated a preference for discussing science and religion online, many of them noted the benefit of having asynchronous conversations. They shared that communicating online where there is not an expectation to be present and respond immediately allows them to contribute more productively to the discussion, as they can research more, cite sources, and craft a better response. A 34-year-old computer engineer who is not religious shared:

Online, if I have somebody who's critical of a perspective that I’m having, I at least have time to do a thorough investigation of what my thoughts and stuff are. So I can cite sources. I can pull up materials to support or to refute thoughts and processes that I’m having with somebody.

A 29-year-old Christian research scientist explained that having time to research science topics helps him avoid feeling shamed in offline interactions.

It's sometimes harder to wrap yourself around topics in person. Also, I think it depends on who you’re talking to, but there might be a little bit … I think in science, people do end up [..] shaming, if you don't get an idea quickly. [..] I like the comfort and the time that I can afford, absorbing a topic at my own pace when I investigate online.

Asynchronous discussions as a reason behind people’s preference to communicate online were mentioned similarly when participants discussed science or religion domains.

Detachment

Several respondents reported the ability to detach online as a reason to communicate remotely about science and religion. They stated that communicating online makes it easier to post something or discuss a topic and then walk away if they are no longer interested in engaging. A 49-year-old spiritual woman explained this idea of detachment as an important reason behind her preference for communicating online about religion: ‘Because then you don't have to deal with the person. You can log off.’ A 37-year-old non-religious man shared similar sentiments: ‘When you’re online, you’re free from … if you don't like the conversation, you can just leave in an instant. And there's no goodbyes.’ A 61-year-old Christian woman echoed these thoughts: ‘Because of the separation and anonymity. You can always … disconnect the call if you want to … And so I feel comfortable online, really, discussing it. Because I don't get quite as involved. Whereas in person, not so good.’

This ability to detach was mentioned more often by respondents when talking about religion than science.

Social media affordances

Respondents highlighted traits of social media as a main reason behind their preference for communicating online. A 37-year-old Christian minister noted:

I think some of the best online conversation about spirituality that I have is on Facebook. I think it's the place where people feel the most comfortable making the longest comment. [..] The comments that people that I come across of the spiritual nature on Instagram, for example, are mostly quick, short, encouraging things.

Some respondents noted that certain platforms such as Instagram, allow for more anonymity and privacy than other social media. A 28-year-old digital marketing manager who is a nondenominational Christian highlighted how specific features on Instagram make her more comfortable with communicating about religion online:

Because there are so many settings in place in Instagram to not allow a conversation on a topic, if it ever came to that point, Instagram makes it very easy. If you need to turn off the ability to message someone back, or respond to their story, or comment on their posts, or things like that. So I feel like if it ever did get to that point where I was like: ‘I made a mistake. I should not have brought this up. I don't want to bring this attention to myself. I don't want to have this negative conversation and experience’ I know that I have those backups to easily shut all of that down. Where people can't respond or where things can be deleted.

Specific characteristics of social media were cited as a reason behind respondents’ online preference slightly more in the realm of discussing science compared to religion.

Offline discussion preference

For those respondents who preferred communicating about science or religion offline, access to verbal and nonverbal cues as well as avoiding online discussions were the most common reasons behind this choice.

Access to verbal and nonverbal cues

The ability to see another person's body language and hear their tone of voice when communicating with them about science and religion was highlighted as a way to make the conversation more comfortable, fulfilling, intimate, and effective. When asked about his comfort level discussing religion online versus offline, a 71-year-old Catholic man mentioned, ‘It's always more effective to communicate face-to-face, because we can pick up each other's cues, body language, expressions, so that's always going to be more effective and more personal.’

Some mentioned that these two domains can cause heated conversations involving conflict and therefore, communicating offline with access to verbal and nonverbal cues can ensure that the communication is more effective. A 33-year-old Jewish woman shared how these cues support her preference for communicating offline about religion:

I feel like with online, everything gets over-exaggerated and people can't see the facial expressions and the tone of where it's coming from. [..] And I think online it always comes off as aggressive in your head. And so, with a face-to-face conversation, you get those context cues, and it makes it easier to communicate with someone, even with such a kind of disruptive topic.

Others brought up that communicating face-to-face can alleviate tension through seeing the other person's reaction to the conversation and adjusting accordingly. For example, the 37-year-old Christian minister quoted earlier said:

I think it is more fulfilling when I can have those conversations face-to-face, because you can hear tone. And you realize you’re a real person. You’re not sitting behind a screen. I can shake your hand. I can give you a hug after this. And I can feel the emotions in the room, and I can realize maybe I shouldn't say what I would have typed out because of the moment and because of how you responded, your face responded.

A few respondents felt that true understanding and learning is more likely to occur in an offline conversation due to access to these cues. For example, a 33-year-old non-religious woman working in a hospital shared:

I believe that a lot of communication is lost when only text is used. And by that, I mean, no body language is involved. … And there's no way to recognize if somebody understands what you’re saying generally [..] So I prefer full communication, especially about topics that I think are important, including philosophy or spirituality. So I don't think that an online platform is the right space for that.

Most respondents who discussed the importance of verbal and nonverbal cues in offline communication did so regarding religion. Respondents described religion as a particularly sensitive topic that can cause tension, which in-person communication can help alleviate. Only two respondents mentioned the importance of body language and tone of voice when explaining their preference for communicating about science offline (compared to eight mentions in the realm of religion).

Avoiding online discussions

When describing their preference for communicating offline, several people cited that characteristics of discussions online pushed them to preferring conversations offline. These included heightened incivility, the risks of conflict, and the permanence of content online.

Many respondents in this study mentioned that potential conflict could arise in discussions about science and religion, which would then allow aggression and incivility to emerge. Several remarked that people tend to be more aggressive behind a screen and less polite than they would be face-to-face. A 73-year-old woman who identifies as spiritual, explained: ‘People hide behind their computer, their tablet, their phone, or whatever, and they’re belittling and bullying people left and right. And it's just not okay.’ A few of these respondents also highlighted how anonymity online allows for heightened aggression in these conversations. A 67-year-old spiritual woman who has a Master's degree in theology echoed,

Online takes away the personal part of it … Facebook has taken away the meaning of personal contact and what it means … You can put anything on Facebook with a picture. But just to sit down with a person and see them—that's old school now.

Some respondents highlighted the subsequent risks of disagreements or uncivil behavior online. They expressed concern about conversations online becoming tense and emotional, and that this could have negative repercussions on their employment or reputation. A 49-year-old woman who identifies as spiritual explained, ‘Because now things are so controversial that you could lose your job so easily. Or people can hunt you down and start trolling you. So, you know, you learn to keep quiet. I would never post anything controversial online.’

Several respondents noted characteristics of the Internet that were a deterrent to their participation in online conversations about science and religion. The most prominent characteristic was the permanence of content online. When asked if he preferred to discuss religion online or offline, a 29-year-old Christian man said ‘Definitely offline. Because your records don't stay, and people cannot go and look at it … I would never leave my mark online.’

Respondents described religion as more sensitive and personal than science, which could therefore spur more conflict. They explained that if there was a potential for conflict in their conversations, they preferred that the conversation take place offline. Respondents generally described science as more objective and fact-based than religion, therefore raising less emotions and aggression. For example, a 28-year-old Christian woman said:

So if it comes to, it's a conversation about religion, I would just rather have it in person, where I feel like people still have their cultural tendencies in terms of being polite and being a little bit more patient, which seems to go out the window online. [..] But I feel like with science, even if people have their opinions, people [..] aren't going to come for you as a person, the way they do with religion.

A 23-year-old Protestant woman working as a mechanical engineer echoed this sentiment, saying, ‘I feel like religion is such a nuanced concept. It's easier to relate to somebody who's in front of your face versus somebody who's online. They can just say whatever. Because a lot of people can get bold online.’

Context-Dependent preference

While many respondents shared a clear inclination for communicating online or offline about science and religion, others had less straight-forward preferences, which depended on the situation or context. The most common reasons behind participants’ context-dependent preferences were the topic of discussion and their relationship with their interlocutors.

Focus of discussion

While asking participants about their preferences for mode of communication around the two topics of science and religion, several focus areas emerged explaining their preferences, such as learning and factuality. A few respondents reported that if they wanted to learn about someone's personal experience or opinion, they would prefer to have the conversation in person. A 24-year-old woman who is not religious indicated that she tends to communicate online for religion and offline for science.

For things that are more spiritual, I definitely prefer the online community, but for science and facts, I would rather hear about it from somebody. [..] I just feel like I can trust my instincts in person and then factcheck it online.

A few people mentioned that science is more factual than religion and therefore can be fact-checked online. The 29-year-old research scientist quoted earlier explained that because he has experience identifying credible sources, he is more comfortable discussing science online.

Science is very different than religion. Because you can check yourself, sometimes, if you have similar training and whether things add up or not … And it's sometimes harder to wrap yourself around topics in person. I have … the training and experience to actually be able to understand whether a source is credible or not, whether things add up or not.

Most participants who mentioned that the particular focus changed their preference for online versus offline did so when discussing religion. However, it's notable that whether people favored online versus offline for science or religion is not consistent across respondents as indicated by the two examples above. The 24-year-old woman preferred discussing religion online while conversing about science offline whereas the research scientist preferred discussing science online.

Relationships

People shared that their preference for communicating about science and religion online versus offline sometimes depended on their relationship with their interlocutor. They specifically reported that the closeness of their audience was a factor in which mode of communication they prioritized.

Several respondents noted challenges when communicating with family about science and religion online or offline. Each of these respondents mentioned conversations with family having the potential to become emotional and tense. A 24-year-old non-religious man who works in a scientific occupation said:

I know that I have some family members that disagree with me on science-related topics and sometimes it's really hard to have those conversations with them. Because usually it's in the context of some sort of family gathering where there's other people around and it can make a scene to have those discussions, because, you know, emotions can get tense.

Some coped with this challenge by avoiding the conversations with family altogether both online and offline. Others intentionally communicated in spaces where their family would not be present because of previous tense interactions. For example, the 37-year-old Christian minister shared:

Some of the hardest criticism I’ve ever gotten was from extended family. … But then when I saw them in person, it was kiss on the cheek, hug, ‘How are you doing?’ Because we’re cousins. But online, it was very intense. … I feel like it's easier to interact really on Twitter because I don't know people. It's not family, I’m not following family, family's not following me.

Other respondents shared that their preference changed depending on whether the people with whom they were communicating were strangers versus known contacts. Most participants who preferred offline discussions were much more comfortable communicating offline with people they knew rather than strangers. A 26-year-old Muslim woman shared the reason behind her offline preference regarding science discussions:

I think offline when I trust the people around me; so that example of my group, a research group, in that research group, for example. I’m competent to talk about my opinions and questions at times. In bigger contexts or contexts that I don't know people much, I’m less motivated to do that.

A 35-year-old Christian woman who is very active in her church and continued to participate actively throughout the pandemic said:

For example, the online for Sunday School, I loved it. But when the Bible Study Fellowship was online, it was hard, because I was missing that connection to people. I think Zoom disconnects us. Even though we’re connected, it still disconnects us. It's not the same as being in person and having that personal relationship to get to know each other.

While the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of video calls as an effective communication method and some respondents used them interchangeably with offline discussions, others still prefer face-to-face interactions.

It is apparent that the respondents’ network and audience play an important role in choosing if and how to communicate online versus offline about science and religion. Participants shared this relationship-dependent preference almost exclusively when discussing religion, while it was only shared once about science discussions.

Discussion

This study set out to explore people's preferences between online and offline modes of communication in the realm of science and religion. Based on 45 one-on-one interviews with a diverse group of Americans we found variations in people's preference in general and also by domain. Some respondents had straightforward preferences for communicating online versus offline about science and religion, while others indicated context-dependent choices.

Respondents who preferred online communication cited asynchronous conversations, the ability to detach, and social media affordances as the most common reasons, mirroring findings in some prior work (Goby, 2002; Yuan et al., 2016). Our respondents particularly noted asynchrony as a motive behind their decision to communicate online, as they felt that having more time to research and craft a response creates a more productive conversation, a finding echoed in earlier literature (Goby, 2002; Yuan et al., 2016).

Over half of our participants favored offline communication to discuss religion, stating the personal and sensitive nature of religion as a key factor. This supports prior work that indicates similar communication mode preferences when discussing spirituality, sharing emotions, or engaging in deep information exchanges (Agosto et al., 2012; Larsen, 2001; Vermeulen et al., 2018). For those respondents who preferred communicating about science or religion offline, access to verbal and nonverbal cues as well as avoiding online discussions were the most common reasons behind this choice.

Several of our respondents perceived people to be more aggressive behind a screen than face-to-face, which aligns with research on online contentious discussions in the realm of politics (Barnidge, 2017; F. L. F. Lee et al., 2019). A few participants felt that anonymity online heightened that incivility, which substantiates previous literature (Santana, 2014). In our study, people shared that this heightened incivility increased their aversion to online discussion environments, mirroring prior research (Gervais, 2015).

Lastly, the participants with context-dependent preferences cited the particular focus of discussion and type of relationship with those being engaged as the main reasons behind their choice. Similar to what Nguyen and colleagues' (2012) review of online versus offline self-disclosure revealed, respondents’ willingness to discuss science or religion through a particular mode of communication depended on their relationship with the interlocutor. In line with previous scholarship that found that people choose different modes depending on the political activity in which they were engaging, our participants also chose online versus offline modes of communication depending on the topic or query (Gibson & Cantijoch, 2013).

We found that participants varied in how they perceived digital affordances to support their decision to communicate online versus offline. Some acknowledged particular features on social media, such as hiding content on Instagram, as an avenue to more productive conversations. On the contrary, some stated digital affordances as a reason to avoid communicating online and instead discuss science and religion in person. These respondents shared concerns about the permanence of the Internet and its associated risks offline, such as losing one's job. Social media affordances theory frames our findings effectively, as many of the reasons behind people's preferences for mode of communication are echoed in affordance theory research, such as the persistence of content online and the visibility of content to others.

Like all research, this project also has limitations. As our study is on a non-probability sample, we cannot generalize our findings beyond the respondents we interviewed. Although we did note slight differences in preferences regarding women and those who are religious, future data collection on generalizable samples will need to be done to explore demographic differences more profoundly. While our sample was diverse in terms of age, gender, and geographical location, it skewed highly educated and included many participants who were inactive in religious and spiritual communities. Future research should explore whether online versus offline preferences change across more varied education levels and religious or spiritual community involvement.

Our research sheds light on key factors behind people's mode of communication preference when discussing potentially contentious topics like science and religion. While early scholars (Dahlberg, 2001; Norris & Norris, 2002; Schäfer, 2012) predicted that the Internet would provide an inclusive and democratic environment for discussing even contentious topics, subsequent research has demonstrated that this is not yet the case (Barnidge, 2017; Gerhards & Schafer, 2010; Santana, 2014; Settle, 2018). In understanding the nuances of communication choices through this qualitative work, communicators in the fields of science and religion can tailor their messaging strategies to reach and engage with their desired audiences more effectively. Using an adaptive approach when engaging with their communities can elevate the quality of online and offline discussions, which can lead to increased participation and understanding around these important topics. Therefore, our work can inform science communicators, religious community members, and future researchers in realizing the Internet's originally envisioned potential to foster democratic discussions.

Conclusion

The Internet is a powerful resource for sharing important messaging as it is geographically unbound, fast, reaches a wide audience, and allows for synchronous and asynchronous communication. While much Internet research (Barnidge, 2017; Gerhards & Schafer, 2010; Santana, 2014; Settle, 2018) challenged the early scholarly optimism of increased efficacy of online discussions (Dahlberg, 2001; Norris & Norris, 2002; Schäfer, 2012), several studies remain hopeful that the Internet can serve as a place for meaningful science discussion through utilizing the right communication strategies (Dietz, 2013; Iyengar & Massey, 2019; Jones et al., 2019). Recent research suggests that people may be looking to disconnect more from online environments (Aranda & Baig, 2018; Jorge, 2019; M. H. Nguyen, 2021) and that they continue to prefer face-to-face communication under various circumstances (Baym et al., 2004; Gruber et al., 2022; Lee, 2010; Robinson & Stubberud, 2012; Sharma et al., 2022; Vermeulen et al., 2018). Yet little research has examined the reasons behind why people may choose to communicate online versus offline, especially in the realm of contentious and important topics such as science and religion. Our study contributes new insights to this area of research which has been largely ignored thus far. Science and religion offer a useful comparison in our study, as they typically provide a way for people to understand and assign meaning to the world (Evans & Evans, 2008).

This study revealed key factors behind people's decisions to use one mode of communication over another to engage in online discussions. We found that people mainly prefer online communication about science and religion due to the asynchrony, the ability to detach, and social media affordances. Those who prefer offline cited verbal and nonverbal cues as the principal reasons behind their choice. Lastly, we found that some people's preferences are not as straightforward, and factors like the particular discussion focus or the nature of the relationship lead them to make context-dependent choices.

As the Internet continues to be a place for online discussion about important topics like science and religion, the findings here have greater implications for how people turn to different communication modes when discussing these domains. Communicators in the science and religion spheres can use lessons learned from this work to broaden their modes of communication and adjust their messaging to reach their desired audiences. Understanding what factors influence people's decisions to prioritize one mode over another can support more effective online and offline communication when discussing important, meaningful, and contentious topics.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Will Marler for his contributions to the project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This project is fully funded by the Science and Religion: Identity and Belief Formation Project sponsored by Rice University and the University of California, San Diego under Grant [TIF0205A] from the Templeton Religion Fund.

Notes on contributors

Becca Smith

Becca Smith was a Research Assistant in the Internet Use & Society Division in the Department of Communication and Media Research at the University of Zurich.

Eszter Hargittai

Eszter Hargittai (PhD, Princeton University) is a professor of communication studies and media research and holds the Chair in Internet Use and Society at the University of Zurich. Her research interests include digital inequality with a particular focus on how people’s Internet skills relate to what they do online.