Abstract
In face-to-face communication there are multiple paralinguistic and gestural features that facilitate recognition of a speaker’s intended meaning, features that are lacking when people communicate digitally (e.g., texting). As a result, substitutes have emerged (expressive punctuation, capitalization, etc.) to facilitate communication in these situations. However, little is known about the comprehension processes involved in digital communication. In this research we examined the role of emoji in the comprehension of face-threatening, indirect replies. Participants in two experiments read question–reply sequences and then judged the accuracy of interpretations of the replies. On critical trials the reply violated the relation maxim and conveyed a negative, face-threatening response. On one-third of the trials the reply contained only text, on one-third of the trials the reply contained text and an emoji, and on one-third of the trials the reply contained only an emoji. When the question requested potentially negative information about one of the interactants (disclosures and opinions), participants were more likely to endorse the indirect meaning of the reply, and did so faster, when the reply contained an emoji than when it did not. This effect did not occur when the question was a request for action, a more conventional type of indirect reply. Overall, then, this research demonstrates that emoji can sometimes facilitate the comprehension of meaning. Future research is needed to examine the boundary conditions for this effect.
Highlights
In prior research [20, 21] we investigated the comprehension of potentially face-threatening indirect replies, a more ambiguous type of indirect meaning
Participants (N = 76; 43 female, 29 male, 4 unidentified) were undergraduate students enrolled in Introductory Psychology courses who participated for partial course credit
Paraphrase accuracy and paraphrase reaction time were analyzed with a linear mixed-effects model that included Situation type and Emoji
Summary
Paraphrase accuracy and paraphrase reaction time were analyzed with a linear mixed-effects model that included Situation type (disclosure vs opinion vs request refusal) and Emoji Paraphrase accuracy and paraphrase reaction time were analyzed with a linear mixed-effects model that included Situation type (disclosure vs opinion vs request refusal) and Emoji condition (No emoji vs Emoji and text vs Emoji alone) as fixed effects and the intercepts for participants and stimuli as random intercepts.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.