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 Coggin Felix Duchampt Elizabeth Heffner Queens University of Charlotte denise.brennan@rexmail.queens.edu felix.duchampt@rexmail.queens.edu elizabeth.heffner@rexmail.queens.edu Submitted: December 7, 2011

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.

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION Introduction II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Computer Mediated Communication Emoticons: A Brief History Nonverbal Communication Differences Between Face-to-Face Communication and CMC Research Questions 10 III. METHODOLOGY Introduction Overview of Research Design Questionnaire Focus Group IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Questionnaire Findings and Discussion Focus Group Findings and Discussion V. VI. VII. ANALYSIS CONCLUSION APPENDICES A: Data Analysis Tables 1 through 8 B: Focus Group Questions C: Informed Consent Form 5 5 6 6 7 8 9

11 11 11 11 13 15 15 15 18 21 23 25 25 33

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling 36 38 VIII. D: Questionnaire

REFERENCES

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.

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).

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 Dresners and Herrings 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

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 Los 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 ones 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,

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).

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

10

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 Queenss 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?

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

11

METHODOLOGY Overview of Research Design Researchers used two methods to gather information from a sample of undergraduate (traditional and Hayworth) students at Queens 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?

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

12

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

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling answer the following: To what extent are emoticons effective as non verbal communication?

13

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.

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

14

T
Smiley face Kissing face Frowning/Sad Face Angel/Innocent Face Eh/Skeptical/Undecided Face Shocked/Surprised Face Annoyed Face Shocked/ Astonished Face Crying Face Pinocchio/Liar Face Laughing Smiley Face

Universal Emoticon Connota

Extremely Upset/Unhappy Face

Dizzy/Confused/ Annoyed Face

Tongue sticking out/ Amused f

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

15

category were one, two and three. Question one addressed the participants 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

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling using social networking sites for one to three hours a day. Following closely behind were

16

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

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-

17

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 faceto-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/familys 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.

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.

18

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

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling to the symbols: indifference, do not understand, whatever, apathy, no expression/emotion, or content.

19

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, Im so sad, youre 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

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.

20

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.

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling ANALYSIS As stated earlier in the paper, the researchers sought to answer the three research

21

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 computermediated 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 computermediated 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,

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

22

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 ones 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.

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

23

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

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

25

SOCIA

Table 2

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

26

AVERAGE TIME QUEEN

60% 50% 40% 30%

Table 3

26%

20% 10% 12%

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

27

WHAT ARE THE DIFFE INTERACTIONS AMO

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

96%

Table 4

4%
work hips?

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

28

WHAT ARE THE DIFFE INTERACTIONS AMO

Table 5

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

29

WHAT ARE THE DIFFE INTERACTIONS AMON

Agree

Strongly Agree

Th Lack of Non V al C es in C Preven e erb u MC ts an Main d tainin C e R g los elation

Table 6

I S en More Tim Us g C th F C p d e in MC an ace o My Profes ion C s al olleg es u

I S end More Tim Us g C th F to F p e in MC an ace a

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

30

HOW D OESNONVERBAL I
N/A ALWAYS

VE R

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Table 7

6 % 24

18 6% 1

0% 2

30

30% 20%

8% 1

22

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

31

HOW DOES NONVERBA

Emoticons are a

My friends tone

My Tone is Comm

My Com municat

Table 8

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

32

T
Smiley face Kissing face Frowning/Sad Face Angel/Innocent Face Eh/Skeptical/Undecided Face Shocked/Surprised Face Annoyed Face Dizzy/Confused/ Annoyed Face Shocked/ Astonished Face Crying Face
Focus Group Questions Section I: Show each emoticon and ask the following questions:

Universal Emoticon Connotat

Extremely Upset/Unhappy Face

Tongue sticking out/ Amused fa Pinocchio/Liar Face Laughing Smiley Face

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 1. Smiley face 2 Kissing face 3 Frowning/Sad Face 4 Angel/Innocent Face 5 Eh/Skeptical/Undecided Face 6 Shocked/Surprised Face 7 Extremely Upset/Unhappy Face 8 Annoyed Face 9 Dizzy/Confused/ Annoyed Face 10 Shocked/ Astonished Face 11 Crying Face 12 Tongue sticking out/ Amused face 13 Pinocchio/Liar Face 14 Laughing Smiley Face 15 Confused Face 16 Winking Smiley Face Section II: Visual of Emoticon :) :* :( 0 :) :-| :O X( (-_-*) (@_@) 0.0 :( :P : ^o XD ?_? ;)

33

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling Do emoticons accurately portray your feelings?

34

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 persons 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?

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

35

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

36

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 Participation Your 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.

RUNNING HEAD: Show Me How You Are Feeling

37

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 Universitys 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 (PLEASE PRINT)

_____________________________ Participant Signature

_____________ DATE

______________________________________ 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

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