Emoticons in IM Conversations Past Research:

– IM supplies a flexible medium for a wide range of conversations (Nardi et al., 2000).

– According to the social presence theory, a greater number of cues result in higher levels of personal connection (Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001).

– Past research states that first impressions are greatly influenced by faces and physical features; faces bring bias into personal interactions (McKenna & Bargh, 2000).

Gender in IM Conversations Past Research:

– Gender stereotypes implicit in society lead individuals to assign certain characteristics upon first impressions. For example, men are stereotyped as being more sarcastic than women (Witmer & Katzman, 1997).

– same emoticons represent different emotions for men and women. Men, for example, tend to use emoticons as a means of conveying sarcasm (Riva, 2001).

– A lack of research exists combining emoticons and text in IM conversations, which leads to questions about the role of emoticons in relation to sarcasm and gender (e.g., Baym, 1995; Riva, 2001).

Sarcasm (DV)

“the use of words to convey a meaning that is something other than, and especially the opposite of, the literal meaning of the words” (Bryant & Fox Tree, 2002).

Emoticons = Facial Expressions = Portrayal of Sarcasm

Hypothesis

With emoticons more sarcastic than without

Gendered more sarcastic than androgynous

Gendered with emoticons most sarcastic condition

Experimental Design

We will use a 2 (emoticon: with versus without) x 2 (gender: male versus androgynous) x 2 (character gender consistency: androgynous/androgynous versus male/androgynous) mixed groups design.

Emoticon use and gender are between groups variables and character gender consistency will be a repeated measures variable.

Method

Participants:– Recruitment:

Dorms, Library, Wilder Basement, Dining Halls

– N = 120 Female Mount Holyoke students Androgynous with emoticons = 30 Gendered with emoticons = 30 Androgynous without emoticons = 29 Gendered without emoticons = 29 Random assignment

Method

Materials:– Operational Definitions:

Emoticons: graphic faces that depict a limited set of facial expressions, display nonverbal human-like qualities (for example , , and ).

Intent: Sarcasm or Humor Sarcasm: rated on a scale from 1-6, 6 being

the most sarcastic Procedure

Results

DV: level of reported sarcasm in an IM conversation as measured through a survey

Hypothesis: the use of emoticons and the gender of the IM conversers will increase the level of reported sarcasm

Analysis Types: mixed design with a repeated measures ANOVA

Results

There was a main effect of emoticons. When emoticons were present participants rated IM conversations as more sarcastic than when emoticons were not present.

Results

Androgynous Conversation

Gendered Conversation

Gender of Conversation

Error Bars show Mean +/- 1.0 SE

Bars show Means

With Emoticon Without Emoticon

Emoticon Use

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Ove

rall

Co

nve

rsat

ion

Rat

ing

Main Effect of Emoticons

W/emoticons: M=3.933, SD=0.082

W/o emoticons: M=3.179, SD=0.082

Results

No main effect of gender No interaction between gender and

emoticons

Results

With Emoticon

Without Emoticon

Emoticon Use

Androgynous Conversation Gendered Conversation

Gender of Conversation

Error Bars show 95.0% Cl of Mean

Bars show Means

Androgynous Gendered

Character Screen Name

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Me

an

Ra

tin

g o

f S

arc

as

m

Effects of Emoticons and Gender on the Rating of Sarcasm

Results

An independent groups ANOVA revealed that emoticons significantly increased participants’ detection of sarcasm in IM conversations F(1,114)=17.154, Mse =16.799, p=.000.

A repeated measures ANOVA showed that gender did not significantly effect sarcasm rating F(1,114)=.027, Mse=.002609, p=.871.

There was no significant interaction. F(1,114)=.323, Mse=.316, p=.571.

Discussion

Our results are consistent with previous research regarding online communication. This research (Nardi et al., 2000) suggested that emoticons would have an effect on participants’ ability to interpret sarcasm in an IM conversation.

Past research also suggested that gender would influence interpretation of sarcasm (Witmer & Katzman, 1997; Riva,2001). However, our results did not support this research.

Problems and Solutions•Lack of ambiguity for AsItWere13

•Manipulate AsItWere13’s role in the conversation

•We believe that participants did not share a common definition of sarcasm

•Clarify survey with definitions, for example, sarcasm and anger

•Participants did not answer all of the questions

•Review the surveys for completeness

•Minor procedural issues

•Avoid future research conducted on computers. It is a pain in the

Implications of Research

As IM becomes a more common medium of communication among the world-wide population, it is becoming more important to conduct further research on the psychological consequences of computer-mediated relationships.

Our research shows that emoticons play an important role in building and maintaining a more than superficial discourse.