View
21
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
comm research
Citation preview
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Show Me How You Are Feeling;Examining the Use of Emoticons in Computer Mediated Communication
Denise Brennan CogginFelix Duchampt
Elizabeth HeffnerQueens University of Charlotte
denise.brennan@rexmail.queens.edu felix.duchampt@rexmail.queens.edu
elizabeth.heffner@rexmail.queens.edu
Submitted: December 7, 2011
1
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
ABSTRACT
As a result of advances in technology and social media websites, college students have
several options for communicating with friends, family, and other students. Those options
include traditional face-to-face interactions and the use of Computer Mediated Communication
(CMC). Since the beginning of the CMC, many researchers have not been convinced by the
possibility of developing and maintaining relationships with others through a computer screen.
According to them, the lack of warm bodies and nonverbal cues would not allow rich relational
messages, thus making the message more impersonal, individualistic and task oriented.
In this study, researchers Coggin, Duchampt, and Heffner explored the concepts of CMC
and face-to-face interaction. Through past research and their own developed questionnaire, they
determined the differences between CMC and face-to-face communication among American
traditional undergraduate students. In addition to defining the nonverbal cues in emoticons,
Coggin, Duchampt and Heffner sought to define the nonverbal cues in face-to-face
communication. Within CMC, they explored the effects of emoticons among these students as
well as how interaction differs between friends and strangers in both of these communication
forms.
Keywords: Computer-Mediated Communication, nonverbal, face-to-face communication,
emoticons.
2
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER
I. HISTORY OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 5
Introduction 5
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6
Computer Mediated Communication 6Emoticons: A Brief History 7Nonverbal Communication 8Differences Between Face-to-Face Communication and CMC 9
Research Questions 10
III. METHODOLOGY 11
Introduction 11 Overview of Research Design 11Questionnaire 11
Focus Group 13
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 15
15Questionnaire Findings and Discussion 15Focus Group Findings and Discussion 18
V. ANALYSIS 21
VI. CONCLUSION 23
VII. APPENDICES 25
A: Data Analysis Tables 1 through 8 25B: Focus Group Questions 33
C: Informed Consent Form
3
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
36 D: Questionnaire 38
VIII. REFERENCES
4
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
HISTORY OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
Introduction
Over the past 15 years, society has become more engaged in interacting within the virtual
realm of the World Wide Web. Conversations that used to be conducted through media such as
face-to-face communication, handwritten correspondence and telephones are now being
challenged with a quick dash of strokes across a keyboard on media platforms such as Tumblr,
Facebook, Myspace, and Skype messaging. This ever-morphing technology has added a new
dimension to our method of communication. With the invention of emoticons in the past 30
years, Internet users have been able to apply some visual form of expression in their
communication. However, the effectiveness of emoticons when compared to nonverbal cues in
face-to-face communication is still up for debate.
5
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Computer Mediated Communication
According to John December of December Communications, Inc, Computer Mediated
Communication is, “is the process by which people create, exchange, and perceive information
using networked telecommunications systems (or non-networked computers) that facilitate
encoding, transmitting, and decoding messages,” (December, 2011). As a result of advances in
technology, individuals have more options to communicate with family, friends and colleagues.
Thus, researchers have been interested in understanding the differences between face-to-face
communication and CMC. Furthermore, researchers have been interested in understanding to
what extent does CMC negatively impact the communication process.
According to Joseph B. Walther (1995), the research about computer mediated
communication has yielded inconsistent results. For example, “In some cases CMC has been
found to be impersonal, task- oriented, and hostile,” (Walther, 1995, p. 186). According to
Walther, “other reports show warm personal relations, and still others show gradual adjustments
in interpersonal relations over time” (Walther, 1995, p.186). In his research, Walther examined
the impact of CMC from an organizational perspective. He concluded that, “the relational
effects in this study of CMC suggest reevaluation of the medium and its potential usefulness in
conveying organizational trust, warmth, attentiveness, concern, and other interpersonal
dimensions known to affect work relationships and organizational outcomes” (Walther 1995,
p.200).
6
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Emoticons: A Brief History
Scott E. Fahlman is said to be the creator of emoticons (Krohn, 2004, p.321). According
to M. M. Extejt (1998), emoticons have been defined as “punctuation marks that viewed
sideways resemble facial expressions,” (as qtd. In Krohn, 2004, p. 322). In Dresner’s and
Herring’s research study (2010), Fahlman is said to have created emoticons on September 19,
1982, while posting a message on the Carnegie Mellon University bulletin board system
(Dresner and Herring, 2010, p.249) . According to Thompson and Foulger (1996), emoticons
have been said to serve as “nonverbal surrogates, suggestive of facial expression, and may thus
enhance the exchange of emotional information by providing additional social clues beyond what
is found in the verbal text of a message,” (as qtd in Derk, Bos, and Grumbkow, 2008, p. 99). In a
study conducted by Dr. Shao-Kang Lo (2008), he found that in using emoticons, receivers are
able to correctly determine and comprehend the given level and direction of emotion, attention,
expression and attitude (Lo, 2008, p. 597).
Khron (2004) sought to determine if emoticons used in CMC serve as non-verbal cues
(Khron, 2004, p.321). In his research, Krohn identified how different generations should use
emoticons. For example, Khron stated:
It is recommended that recipients who are Traditionalists (born before 1946) should not
be sent an e-mail with emoticons; those who are Baby Boomers (those born between
1946 and 1964) probably should not e-mail with emoticons; those who are Generation
Xers (those born between 1964 and 1980) may be sent e-mail with some of the more
7
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
common emoticons; and those who are termed Millenials (born after 1980) and coming
of age (after 2000) may be sent e-mail with generous use of emoticons ( p. 321).
Khron linked the differences between each generation to the recommendations for when to use
emoticons. In regards to Internet communication, past studies have resulted in Lo’s research. In
one of their studies, Kraut et al. (2006) found that when the Internet was extensively used
primarily for communication purposes, a decrease in family communication would occur within
a household (as qtd in Kujath, 2011, p.75). In addition to the aforementioned reduction, a
reduction in the size of one’s circle may occur as well as psychological changes such as an
increase in loneliness and depression (as qtd in Kujath, 2011, p. 75). These researchers attributed
the resulting negative effects to “substitution of online relationships for stronger offline
relationships,” (as qtd. in Kujath, 2011, p. 75).
Bargh and McKenna, however, found the opposite within their study (as qtd, in Kujath,
2011, p.75). They found that rather than being a negative and isolating activity, CMC is able to
help users maintain close interpersonal relationships (Kujath, 2011, p.75). Other studies have
suggested that CMC, when used as a complement to face-to-face interaction, benefits the
maintenance of interpersonal relationships (Kujath, 2011, p.75).
Nonverbal Communication
According to Professor Iris Grace Gonzalez (1978), nonverbal communication is simply
“communication not coded in words, “(Gonzalez, 1978, p. 205). She further explains that “it is
the way we use our body and/or our voice in our intent to communicate meanings and feelings.
It is the silent language of gestures, posture, facial expressions, and body movement. In addition,
nonverbal behavior includes the way we use space and time in relationship to others,” (Gonzalez,
8
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
1978, p. 205). Scholars have explained the difference between nonverbal and verbal cues with
regards to their objective; nonverbal cues are said to convey emotional messages while verbal
cues are said to communicate ideas (Lo, 2008, p.595).
Ruesch and Kees (1956) have created three distinct categories of nonverbal
communication: sign language, action language and object language, which include both
intentional and non-intentional displays of anything material (as qtd. in Khron, 2004, p. 322).
Even with the creation of these precise categories, these communication theorists were unable to
fathom the introduction of emoticons as a branch of nonverbal communication (Khron, 2004,
p.322).
Differences Between Face-to-Face Communication and CMC
One of the more prominent differences between CMC and face-to-face communication is
that the latter requires both communicating parties to be physically present while the former does
not (Krohn, 2004, p.322). Because of this, researchers Allbritton and Rogers (1995) state that
CMC lacks the “traditional nonverbal dimensions f human communication such as facial
expressions, gestures, body positions, personal distance, vocal variety and eye contact, “ (as
qtd.in Krohn, 2004, p.322).
Another belief regarding the use of nonverbal communication is that in the past, it has
been assumed to be unintentional (Krohn, 2004, p.322). Thus, nonverbal cues are traditionally
viewed as more believable than verbal cues (Krohn, 2004, p.322). For example, in a scenario
where cues and nonverbal cues present conflicting signals, the nonverbal cues will tend to be
believed (Krohn, 2004, p.322). With regards to emoticons, however, such forms of expression
are clearly intentional use of nonverbal communication, bringing into question their effectiveness
in accurately communicating emotions (Krohn, 2004, p.322).
9
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Research Questions and Hypothesis
RQ1: To what extent are emoticons effective as non verbal communication?
RQ2: What are the differences between CMC and Face-to-Face interactions among Queens’s
undergraduate students?
RQ3: How does nonverbal interaction differ between friends and strangers in computer-mediated
communication?
Hypothesis
H1: Interpersonal nonverbal cues are more effective than Computer Mediated Communication
emoticons?
10
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
METHODOLOGY
Overview of Research Design
Researchers used two methods to gather information from a sample of undergraduate
(traditional and Hayworth) students at Queen’s University of Charlotte. The first method was a
questionnaire and the second method was through focus groups.
Participants and Procedures
In order to examine the impact and effectiveness of computer-mediated communication,
the traditional undergraduate students and Hayworth College students was targeted. The
questionnaire was distributed during the month of October during school and meal hours across
campus in order to obtain the most diverse range of participants possible.
Questionnaire Methodology
The objective of the questionnaire was to explore the idea that computer-mediated
communication such as emoticons, although beneficial, are at this point in time still not as
effective as traditional face-to-face communication. The questionnaire sought to gather
information specific to the following research questions:
(1) What are the differences between CMC and Face to Face Interactions among Queens
Undergraduate students and,
(2) How does nonverbal interaction differ between friends and strangers in computer-mediated
communication?
11
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
The questionnaire was comprised of twenty-six questions. Three of the twenty-six
questions gathered demographic information about the student. Four of the twenty-six of
questions gathered data about the types of social network sites and time spent by the student.
Eleven of the twenty-six questions gathered data that sought to address the following research
question “What are the differences between CMC and Face to Face Interactions among Queens
Undergraduate students”. The final eight of the twenty-six of questions captured data that sought
to address the following, “How does nonverbal interaction differ between friends and strangers
in computer-mediated communication”?
The questionnaire was distributed to fifty students, 47 of which were traditional
undergraduate and three of which were from the Hayworth College. The researchers attempted to
find an equal balance between the two college groups. However, during the times in which the
questionnaires were distributed, very few Hayworth students ended up being on campus. Thus, it
is important to note that the majority of the students were less than 26 years of age.
Two questions were excluded from the research finding. Those questions are: (1) I prefer
face to face when I am (rank in order of importance, 1 being most important and 7 least
important) and, (2) I prefer Computer mediated communication when I am… The answer
choices for both questions were: happy, stressed/worried, sad, in love, angry, resolving conflict
and embarrassed. The reason that the above questions were excluded was because the majority of
the students who completed the questionnaire did not follow the stated directions. Rather than
using the number 1-7 one time, many students used the numbers multiple times. As a result, the
sample did not provide a consistency in the data. Researchers Coggin, Duchampt and Heffner
organized focus groups to gather the data specific to the two questions. In addition to gathering
data for the excluded questions within the questionnaire, the objective of the focus group was to
12
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
answer the following: “To what extent are emoticons effective as non verbal communication?”
and the hypothesis “Interpersonal non-verbal cues are more effective than emoticons in computer
mediated communication.”
Focus Group Methodology
The focus groups were created in order to answer the main research question: “To what
extent are emoticons effective as non verbal communication?” The hypothesis, “Interpersonal
non-verbal cues are more effective than emoticons in computer mediated communication,” was
also answered in the focus groups as well. Three focus groups were conducted, each having five
to seven students per group. Each focus group was comprised of three segments. The first
segment of the focus group was comprised of 16 visuals of various emoticons. Participants were
asked to look at the emoticons and answer the following questions: (1) What does this emoticon
mean to you? and (2) When and why do you use this emoticon? The next section was a
discussion segment in which ten questions were asked about the use and effectiveness of
emoticons as well as the use and effectiveness of nonverbal cues. The final section was used for
additional questions and discussion about the issues involving emoticons.
Below is table 8, which shows each of the 16 emoticons, portrayed during the focus
groups.
13
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Table 8
;)Winking Smiley Face
?_?Confused Face
XDLaughing Smiley Face
: ^oPinocchio/Liar Face
:PTongue sticking out/ Amused face
:’(Crying Face
0.0Shocked/ Astonished Face
(@_@)Dizzy/Confused/ Annoyed Face
(-_-*)Annoyed Face
X(Extremely Upset/Unhappy Face
:OShocked/Surprised Face
:-|Eh/Skeptical/Undecided Face
0 :)Angel/Innocent Face
:(Frowning/Sad Face
:*Kissing face
:)Smiley face
Visual of EmoticonUniversal Emoticon Connotation
14
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Questionnaire Findings and Discussion
After computing the data, the researchers divided the findings into five categories. The
first category looked at defining the audience and the data. The questions selected for this
category were one, two and three. Question one addressed the participant’s age. The researchers
found that the majority of the participants were between the ages of 18-20 years of age, followed
next by 20-22 years of age. None of the participants were between the ages of 26-36. Question
two focused on indentifying whether the students were traditional undergraduates (TUG) or
Hayworth College students. It was found that 96% of the students were TUG students, and the
remaining 6% were Hayworth students. Question three identified what academic year the student
was in. The findings showed a fairly even distribution, with 38% of the population as seniors and
the remaining classes ranging between 20-22%.
The second category set out to define the general use of social networking sites (SNS).
Questions four, five, ten and eleven were examined for this section. Question four examines the
number of social networking sites used by an individual. According to the findings, 68% of the
participants used one to two social networking sites. Question five looked at the types of social
networking sites used. The social networking sites ranged from Facebook to Twitter to LinkedIn.
There was also an “Other” option for sites not listed in the initial grouping. Facebook was the
overwhelming majority, with 90% of the participants using it. Following behind Facebook was
Twitter at 58%. Six Degrees received the lowest score, with 0% participant use. Question ten
looked at the amount of time participants spent on their social networking sites. Options ranged
from 0 minutes to more than three hours. The results varied greatly, with 29% of participants
15
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
using social networking sites for one to three hours a day. Following closely behind were
participants spending 10-30 minutes at 27% and participants spending 30-60 minutes with 25%.
From there, question eleven looked at the number of times the social networking sites
were checked. Options ranged from once a week to multiple times an hour. 31% of participants
stated that they checked their social networking sites twice a day, closely followed by three times
a day and every couple of hours, both at 20%. Other was listed at 2%, with one person stating
that they checked their social networking sites once or twice a month.
The third category looked at defining the preference of use in face-to-face
communication as well as computer-mediated communication. Questions six, seven, eight, nine,
thirteen, seventeen and nineteen were examined for this section. Question six looked at whether
the participants use social networking sites to form new relationships. The results were fairly
even, with 26 responding with a “no” and 24 students responding with a “yes.” Question seven
focused on whether participants use social networking sites to maintain relationships and
friendships. 96% of students stated that they use it as a maintenance tool. Question eight targeted
using social networking sites for business relationships. 34 people said they chose not to use
social networking sites for business relationships, and 16 people said that they do.
Question nine asked whether they preferred face-to-face communication over computer
mediated communication. 31% of students said they preferred face-to-face communication over
computer-mediated communication very often, followed by 29% of students saying they always
prefer face-to-face communication over computer mediated communication. Question thirteen
focused on spending more time on computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face
communication. The majority of students stated “sometimes” as their response with 41%,
followed by “rarely” at 35%. Question eighteen discussed whether emoticons were as effective
16
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
as nonverbal gestures in face-to-face communication. 36% of participants stated that they are
rarely as effective, followed by 30% of participants saying they were sometimes as effective.
Question 19 asked participants whether they spent more time using computer-mediated
communication with professional colleagues than face-to-face communication. 38% of
participants “strongly disagreed” with this statement, followed by 26% simply “disagreeing”.
The fifth and final category targeted emoticons in comparison to gestures in nonverbal
communication. The goal was to define the outcome for the interaction between computer-
mediated communication and face-to-face communication. Questions 15, 18, 22, 24, and 27 were
used in this section. Question 15 looks at the statement “communication partners understand my
nonverbal cues in face-to-face communication.” The response “very often” stood out with 42%.
Question 18 examined the statement that emoticons were as effective as nonverbal cues in face-
to-face communication. 36% stated they rarely were, followed by 30% of participants stating
they sometimes were. Question 22 focused on the perception that the lack of nonverbal cues in
computer-mediated communication prohibits the formation and maintenance of close
relationships. 34% of participants felt it was “neutral,” followed by 22% stating that they
disagree.
Question 24 looks at the statement “My friend/family’s tone is clearly communicated in
computer-mediated communication.” 44% said “often,” followed by 28% saying “sometimes.”
Question 27 then asked whether participants felt their tone was clearly communicated in
computer-mediated communication. 32% said “sometimes,” followed by 28% stating they felt
that they “often” were.
17
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Focus Group Findings and Discussion
The first part of the focus group sought to understand the meaning that individuals attached to
different emoticons.
The first emoticon, the traditional smiley “:)”, was recognized by all focus groups
members. Individuals placed the following contextual meanings to the symbols: feelings of
happiness, joking tone, and sarcasm. All members of the focus group send and receive this
symbol in their computer mediated communication.
The second emoticon, the traditional kiss “ :*” , is not commonly used by the focus group
members. Only three members say that they do use this symbol in their computer mediated
communication. In addition, the symbol was not known by many, however, the following
meanings were attached by the group: teardrop, someone crying, mean face, gasp, and finally it
is used as a way of saying I love you.
The third emoticon reviewed in the focus group, was the traditional sad face “ :( .” Every
person who participated in the focus group recognized the symbol and used it in their Computer
mediated communication. Focus group members assigned the following meanings to the symbol:
unhappy, feel bad, sorry, disappointed, and finally, something bad or wrong happened.
The fourth emoticon explored in the focus group is the angel face “ 0: )”. No one in the
focus group use this symbol in their computer mediated communication. The following meaning
was attached to the symbol by focus group members: innocent, halo smile, monkey face, and it
would be used if the individual did something wrong.
The fifth emoticon discussed in the focus group was the traditional indifferent face “ :-|.”
According to the sample, this symbol is not used by individuals either when sending or receiving
messages from their communication partners. The focus group attached the following meanings
18
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
to the symbols: indifference, do not understand, whatever, apathy, no expression/emotion, or
content.
The sixth emoticon, the traditional shocked face, “ :O ,” was explored in the focus group.
All focus group members stated that they do not use or receive this symbol in their computer
mediated communication. However, after analyzing the symbol, group members attached the
following meaning to it: gasp, sexual connotation, gee whiz, shocked, surprised, OMG, dead,
crying, and very upset.
The seventh emoticon analyzed by the focus group is the traditional extremely upset or
unhappy, “ X( .”All focus group members stated that they do not use this symbol with their
communication partners in their computer mediated communication. After analyzing the symbol,
focus group members attached the following meaning to it: embarrassment, death, not happy,
exhausted, frustrated, tired, stressed, I’m so sad, you’re killing me, and the opposite of what you
thought.
The eighth emoticon is the traditional annoyed face “ (-_- *) .”This symbol is not used by
the sample of focus group members. However, the following meaning was attached: silent
suffering, exasperated face, frustrated, quiet suffering, thinking, crying, girl in cartoon, mean
face and hit on head.
The ninth emoticon, the traditional dizzy/confused and annoyed face, “ (@_@)” , also
was not used by any of the focus group members. The focus group members assigned the
following meaning to the symbol: dazed and confused, surprised, angry, and dizzy.
The tenth emoticon explored in the focus group was the traditional shocked or astonished
face “ 0.0 . ” One individual in the focus group used the symbol but not often in their computer
19
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
mediated communication. The focus group members attached the following meaning to the
symbol: shocked, WTF, LOLWHAT? , say what?, boobs, surprised, and scary.
The eleventh emoticon the group analyzed was the traditional crying face “ :’( .” One
person in the group stated that he used it occasionally. The rest of the focus group members
attached the following meaning to the symbol: sad, crying, extremely upset, and crush my soul.
The twelfth emoticon is the traditional tongue sticking out face “ :P .” Ten people in the
focus group use this emoticon in their computer mediated communication. The group assigned
the following meaning to the symbol: teasing, joking around, silly face and just kidding.
The thirteenth emoticon was the traditional Pinocchio face “: ^o .” No one had seen it but
one person. Another one was then planning on using it. However, the group members assigned
the following meaning to the symbol: surprised, sleepy, yelling, liar face, Pinocchio and nosy.
The fourteenth emoticon, used by 4 people, was the traditional laughing smiley face
“ XD.” However, almost all focus group members were able to attach the following meaning to
the symbol: very funny, super excited, squee face, LMAO, ROFL, LOL , really happy and
excited.
The fifteenth emoticon is the traditional confused face “ ?_? .” Nobody had even seen or
used it. However, focus group members could attach the following meaning to the symbol:
confused, questionable, and it looks like bunny.
Finally, the sixteenth emoticon is the winky face “ ;) .” Eleven people from the focus
group use it. They attached the following meaning to the face: mischievous, sexual connotation,
winky and flirting, teasing, and suggestive.
20
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
ANALYSIS
As stated earlier in the paper, the researchers sought to answer the three research
questions and the hypothesis. The first or main research question asked, “To what extent does the
use of emoticons impact text-based communication?”
The second research question sought to examine the differences between computer-
mediated communication and face-to-face interaction among Queens undergraduate students.
Looking at the fifth category of questions, the study found that 42% of the participants “very
often” felt their communication partners understood their nonverbal cues in face-to-face
communication. This was followed by the response “always” with 29%. Based on the research
covered in the literature review, a correlation between use of nonverbal cues and effective verbal
communication is quite common. In regards to emoticons being as effective as nonverbal cues,
36% of participants felt they “rarely” were, followed by 30% of participants feeling they
“sometimes” were. This finding surprised researchers. Given the significant rise in computer-
mediated communication over the past decade, the researchers thought the participants would
have felt the emoticons to be more effective in conveying an emotion than participants stated.
The third research question examined how nonverbal interaction differed between friends
and strangers in computer-mediated communication. Looking at the fourth category of questions,
the study found that over half of the participants would never use emoticons with strangers. Even
more participants said they would never use emoticons when talking to professional
acquaintances. This result reinforces the belief that communication with professional
acquaintances is formal, and thus would strongly discourage the use of emoticons in
conversation. In regards to using emoticons with friends, there was a scattering of responses,
21
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
with “often,” “very often,” and “rarely” being the most commonly selected. This may have to do
with how the participants defined the term “friend” when answering this question. When using
emoticons with family members, there was somewhat of a divide among the participants with
24% saying “never” and 20% saying “sometimes.” Like the term “friend,” participants may also
have defined “family members” differently. Some participants may have only looked at
immediate family members while others took into account their extended family members.
The hypothesis stated the following: Interpersonal non-verbal cues are more effective
than emoticons in computer mediated communication. After reviewing the discussions from the
three focus groups, the researchers found that participants supported this hypothesis. During the
discussions, participants stated that while the forms of emoticons had greatly expanded over the
past few years, there is still only so much a face created by numbers and letters across a screen
can convey. Participants in the third group explained that computer-mediated communication
increases the chance of misinterpretation. Furthermore, participants felt it was easier to deceive
one’s true emotions through emoticons. Emoticons, they stated, are a more deliberate and
conscious effort while nonverbal communication is often an automatic response to an action or
conversation.
22
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
CONCLUSION
The main objective of the research was to better understand to what extent are emoticons as
effective as nonverbal cues. The research indicated that although traditional undergraduate
students use emoticons frequently in their computer mediated communication, they do not
replace nonverbal cues completely. While emoticons provide context for simple feelings, the
sample indicated that they are not as effective in illustrating complex feelings. The sample
examined in this research supported that nonverbal cues in face to face interactions are superior
than the use of emoticons in computer mediated communication.
Although the questionnaire proved very useful to this research study, there were some
limitations. One of the major limitations regarded the questionnaire participants. While the
researchers attempted to find both traditional undergraduate students and Hayworth College
students, Hayworth College students made up a very small portion of the questionnaire takers.
Therefore, future researchers should attempt to balance the number of students from both
colleges more effectively.
After examining the results from the questionnaire and the focus groups, it is apparent
that there is still a variety of information that can be further explored and researched. Deception
was one concept that the focus group brought up. Participants often found it more difficult to
determine whether their communication partner was being truly honest. It would be interesting
for future researchers to examine how students and other groups of people determine honesty
through computer mediated communication.
Another factor that should be further examined is how groups of friends and
professionals assign meaning to emoticons. Researchers Coggin, Duchampt and Heffner found
that many of the friends in their focus groups had determined the same specific interpretation of
23
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
each emoticon. As a result, the groups seem to have their own unspoken culture based on the
interpretation of the emoticons.
24
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
APPENDICES
Table One
Table 2
25
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Table 3
26
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Table 4
27
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Table 5
28
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Table 6
29
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Table 7
30
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Table 8
31
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Table 8
;)Winking Smiley Face
?_?Confused Face
XDLaughing Smiley Face
: ^oPinocchio/Liar Face
:PTongue sticking out/ Amused face
:’(Crying Face
0.0Shocked/ Astonished Face
(@_@)Dizzy/Confused/ Annoyed Face
(-_-*)Annoyed Face
X(Extremely Upset/Unhappy Face
:OShocked/Surprised Face
:-|Eh/Skeptical/Undecided Face
0 :)Angel/Innocent Face
:(Frowning/Sad Face
:*Kissing face
:)Smiley face
Visual of EmoticonUniversal Emoticon Connotation
Focus Group Questions
Section I: Show each emoticon and ask the following questions:
32
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
What does this emoticon mean?
When do you use this emoticon in communication?
What does this emoticon mean?
Universal Emoticon Connotation Visual of Emoticon
1. Smiley face :)
2 Kissing face :*
3 Frowning/Sad Face :(
4 Angel/Innocent Face 0 :)
5 Eh/Skeptical/Undecided Face :-|
6 Shocked/Surprised Face :O
7 Extremely Upset/Unhappy Face X(
8 Annoyed Face (-_-*)
9 Dizzy/Confused/ Annoyed Face (@_@)
10 Shocked/ Astonished Face 0.0
11 Crying Face :’(
12 Tongue sticking out/ Amused face :P
13 Pinocchio/Liar Face : ^o
14 Laughing Smiley Face XD
15 Confused Face ?_?
16 Winking Smiley Face ;)
Section II:
33
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Do emoticons accurately portray your feelings?
What are the limitations to using emoticons to portray your feelings?
What are the benefits to using emoticons to portray your feelings?
How often do you misinterpret emoticons when you are on the receiving end of the
communication?
Is the use of emoticons effective as non verbal cues?
To what extent are your non verbal cues effective in communication?
How important is seeing a persons face when communicating?
To what extent do you factor the tone in a person’s voice?
Does your face and tone of vice accurately portray your feelings in your interpersonal
communication?
How often do you misinterpret your communication partners face and tone of voice in
interpersonal communication?
34
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling 35
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Informed Consent Perception of Dynamic Activity Study
Project Title and Purpose:You are invited to participate in a research study entitled Emoticons verses Interpersonal Communication. This is a study to examine to what extent are emoticons effective as non verbal communication.
Investigator(s):This study is being conducted by students in a Communication Research class at Queens University of Charlotte as part of a class project under the direction of Dr. Dana Nathaniel in the Communication Department.
Description of Participation:In this study you will be asked to identify specific emoticons and to discuss the effectiveness of using emoticons verses facial expressions to portray your feelings.
Length of ParticipationYour participation in this project will take approximately 45 minutes. If you decide to participate, you will be one of approximately 20 participants in this study. Participants will be drawn on a convenience basis from contacts in the student population at Queens University of Charlotte and from the Charlotte community.
Risks and Benefits of Participation:There are no risks known at this time associated with participating in the study. However, there may be risks which are currently unforeseeable. The only benefit of participation in this study is the knowledge you will gain about the topic being investigated. The results of the study will only be used for this class project. You may obtain a copy of all results by contacting me anytime after December 15, 2011. You will not receive financial reimbursement for your participation; however, your instructor may give you extra credit.
Volunteer Statement You are a volunteer. The decision to participate in this study is completely up to you. If you decide to be in the study, you may stop at any time. You may skip any item you do not wish to answer. You will not be treated any differently if you decide not to participate or if you stop once you have started.
36
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Confidentiality:All information you provide will be kept confidential; numbers, only, are used as identification, no names will appear with the data. All data files will be destroyed at the end of the project.
Fair Treatment and Respect:Queens University of Charlotte wants to make sure that you are treated in a fair and respectful manner. Contact the University’s Institutional review Board (Dr. Lily Halsted at 704.688.2841) if you have any questions about how you are treated as a study participant. If you have any questions about the project, please contact Dr. Daina Nathaniel at 704-688-2743
Participant Consent:I have read the information in this consent form. I have had the chance to ask questions about this study, and those questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I am at least 18 years of age, am an emancipated minor*, or my guardian has signed below, and I agree to participate in this research project. I understand that I will receive a copy of this form after it has been signed by me and the researcher.
________________________ _____________________________ _____________Participant Name Participant Signature DATE(PLEASE PRINT)
______________________________________ _____________________Researcher Signature DATE
*Emancipated Minor (as defined by NC General Statute 7B-101.14) is a person who has not yet reached their 18th birthday and meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) has legally terminated custodial rights of his/her parents and been declared ‘emancipated’ by a court; 2) is married, or 3) is serving in the armed forces of the United States.
REFERENCES
December, John. (2011). Defining Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved from
http://www.december.com/john/study/cmc/what.html
37
RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling
Derk, D., Bos, A. R., & von Grumbkow, J. (2008). Emoticons in Computer-Mediated
Communication: Social Motives and Social Context. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,
11(1), 99-101. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9926
Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the Nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and
Illocutionary Force. Communication Theory (10503293), 20(3), 249-268.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.x
Gonzalez, I. (1978). Nonverbal Aspects of Interpersonal Communication.
Communication, 7(1), 205-212. Retrieved from EbscoHOST database.
Khron, F.B. (2004). A Generational Approach to Using Emoticons as Nonverbal
Communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 34(4). 321-328.
Retrieved from EbscoHOST database.
Kujath, C. L. (2011). Facebook and MySpace: Complement or substitute for face-to-face
interaction? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 14(1-2), 75-78.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0311
Lo, S. (2008). The Nonverbal Communication Functions of Emoticons in Computer-Mediated
Communication. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(5), 595-597.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0132
Walther, J.B. (1995). Relational Aspect of Computer-mediated Communication:
Experimental Observations Over Time. Organization Science. 6(2). 186-203.
38
Recommended