It's a tricky one. The flip side is that explaining your decisions more may also invite more argument from the players, as they're often just going to argue in response. I like to say 'no' or something similar to possible foul claims, but another referee observed that it could be that which is prompting argument.
I remember on particular incident, a player had taken a kick and was off balance then stumbled a few steps backwards. This caused him to clatter into an opponent, who had put his hands up preempting the impact, with the result that the hands were on his back, but tucked close to his body, not pushing, when it was the first player's fault. I tried explaining that to him when he argued the foul, and it just invited further argument, when in hindsight if I had just said 'no foul, get on with it' he probably would have forgotten about it 5 seconds later.
My final season of refereeing I struggled with match control. The interesting this was that it was my first full season after a couple of years of Futsal refereeing (that wasn't the only variable; I had returned to my old stomping ground as well, and the levels of aggression and abuse had increased massively). With Futsal, I was forced to adopt a different approach in match control and talking to players. Sometimes we simply do have to resort to a bit of an authoritarian approach to handle certain situations; just because we may use that on particular incidents doesn't mean that's the overall approach to the game. But sometimes that's the only thing that forces a player to get on with it; reminding them that they're answerable to something bigger and they will be held accountable. In low-level futsal, this doesn't work, it just infuriates the players. So I found I had to be talking to the players a lot more, even take a more appeasing manner. As it turns out this impacted upon how I refereed outdoor, and I don't think it impacted well.
But one particular difference was the increase in talking to players - though as I said, that wasn't the only difference.
The point is, there's a risk that talking to players more may result in more argument. I'm not trying to argue that it will or that it won't, merely to make people aware that it may occur.
Ultimately, match control is a highly personal thing, connected strongly to your own refereeing style and your own personality, charisma and field presence. What works for one referee may not work for another - similarly, what fails for one referee may work really well for another. If you do experiment with this approach, the difficulty is probably in remembering that it's simply part of your toolbox, and learning when not to use it is just as important as learning when/how to use it.
