Show Me How You Are Feeling Final Draft v3CogginDuchamptHeffner

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

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]

Submitted: December 7, 2011

1


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


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


36 D: Questionnaire 38

VIII. REFERENCES

4


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Table 8

;)Winking Smiley Face

?_?Confused Face

XDLaughing Smiley Face

: ôPinocchio/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


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


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


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


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


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


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 “: ô .” 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


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


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


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


each emoticon. As a result, the groups seem to have their own unspoken culture based on the

interpretation of the emoticons.

24


APPENDICES

Table One

Table 2

25


Table 3

26


Table 4

27


Table 5

28


Table 6

29


Table 7

30


Table 8

31


Table 8

;)Winking Smiley Face

?_?Confused Face

XDLaughing Smiley Face

: ôPinocchio/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


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 : ô

14 Laughing Smiley Face XD

15 Confused Face ?_?

16 Winking Smiley Face ;)

Section II:

33


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


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


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


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

Documents

Show Me How You Are Feeling Final Draft v3CogginDuchamptHeffner