New academic research suggests that the abbreviated language commonly used in text messages, such as 'hru' for 'how are you', may be subtly eroding the quality of our personal connections. A series of studies indicates these digital shortcuts, often seen as efficient, can make recipients feel the sender is not making enough effort, leading to a sense of disengagement.
The Sincerity Deficit in Digital Shorthand
The investigation was spearheaded by David Fang, a PhD student in Marketing at Stanford University, alongside researchers Sam Maglio and Yiran Zhang. It began with Fang's personal observation of his brother's cryptic texting style. Their comprehensive work, published on Monday 05 January 2026 in The Conversation, combined surveys, controlled experiments, and analysis of real-world platform data.
An initial survey of 150 American texters aged 18 to 65 found that while 90.1% regularly used abbreviations and 84.2% believed they had a positive or neutral impact, the recipients' perceptions told a different story. Controlled lab tests with 1,170 participants aged 15 to 80 presented near-identical text exchanges—one with abbreviations, one without. Consistently, participants rated the sender using shortcuts like 'plz', 'sry', or 'idk' as less sincere and less worthy of a reply.
From Friends to Flames: The Universal Effect
The researchers questioned whether closeness would negate this effect. Could you abbreviate freely with a dear friend or partner? The answer was a clear no. Even individuals imagining conversations with a longtime friend reported feeling slightly put off by half-spelled words, which diminished the perceived authenticity of the interaction.
To move beyond the lab, the team took their inquiry to Discord, a platform popular with younger, abbreviation-savvy users. They messaged random users asking for TV show recommendations, using both full and abbreviated language. True to their earlier findings, fewer people responded to the abbreviated requests, confirming the pattern persists among digital natives.
Romantic Connections Short-Circuited
The most striking tests involved romance and dating. A Valentine's Day speed-dating experiment paired participants in a private messaging portal. Half were incentivised to use abbreviations like 'ty'. When it came to exchanging contact details, those who received abbreviation-heavy messages were notably more reluctant, citing a perceived lack of effort from their potential match.
Further evidence came from a deep analysis of hundreds of thousands of Tinder conversations. The data showed that messages filled with 'u', 'rly' (really), and similar shortcuts received fewer responses and were more likely to end conversations prematurely.
It's the Thought—and the Letters—That Count
The researchers clarify they are not advocating a ban on 'lol'. Isolated abbreviations are unlikely to sink a friendship. However, a consistent reliance on condensed phrases lowers the impression of the sender's sincerity. Typing 'plz' repeatedly risks broadcasting that the recipient isn't worth the extra keystrokes. While subtle in a single exchange, this effect accumulates over time.
The article notes that abbreviations began as a practical workaround for clunky flip-phone keypads and strict character limits. Yet, the habit persists long after those technological constraints have faded. The core advice for nurturing deeper connections is simple: taking an extra second to type 'thank you' instead of 'ty' can be a wise investment, signalling to the recipient that they matter.
Fang reports a modest shift in his brother's behaviour since sharing the findings—the occasional fully spelled 'thank you' and a heartfelt 'hope you're well' have appeared. It underscores the research's conclusion: sometimes, just a few more letters can make all the difference.
