Emojis and Exclamation Points: Men’s Expressiveness and Subsequent Evaluation in Interpersonal Mobile Communication

Introduction

Although the increasing reliance on text messaging in interpersonal communication seems to be a trend quite obvious to many, the dramatic rise in the use of text-based messages through mobile channels (e.g., 2.2 trillion text messages annually in the United States; Wireless, 2022) is a relatively recent phenomenon in terms of the history of human communication. The even more recent addition of nonverbal forms of expression in text-based messaging—for example, emojis (and other visual elements like gifts and memes) that visually represent emotional expression or gestures and other features—has advanced the conversation about nonverbal texting far beyond the primitive emoticons that emerged years ago (Pavalanathan & Eisenstein, 2016). Much engineering research has studied the impact of such messaging innovations on the ways that we use our mobile devices (e.g., An et al., 2018; Tauch & Kanjo, 2016). At the same time, cognitive research has scrutinized our increased reliance on emojis using mobile devices (e.g., Hakami, 2017), and clinical research has examined the psychological impact of these devices in regular use (e.g., Chassiakos et al., 2016). Still, not much communication-focused research has explicitly scrutinized the specific interpersonal impacts of these expressive messages in terms of perceptions that are formed about a male interaction partner who uses them.

Rationale

Given the previously-reviewed literature on the impact of expressiveness on the quality and perceptions of messaging in general—and specifically messaging that occurs using texting through mobile technology—it is expected that conversations utilizing text messages that contain expressive features (i.e., emojis and exclamation points) are likely to be perceived more positively than those conversations that do not contain expressive features. In addition, the individuals who use expressive features are also likely to be perceived more positively than individuals who do not use such expressive features. In short, the presence of expressive features have a positive impact on the evaluation of messages that contain them.

H1

There is a difference in general perceptions of the conversational partner based on expressiveness, with more expressive conversations resulting in higher partner ratings than less expressive conversations.

H2

There is a difference in general affect towards the conversation based on expressiveness, with more expressive conversations rated higher than less expressive conversations.

In addition, research has shown that expressivity is also likely to impact partner’s expectations about the gender characteristics of men who use expressive features (i.e., emojis and exclamation points), especially when those individuals do not have any other characteristics to rely upon beyond, say, the name of that individual. Based upon past research, we expect that this impact will be more significant for ratings of men, who traditionally have a more confined range of “normal” communicative behaviors than do women (for an overview of differences, see Canary et al., 2009). In this research we are using a perspective on masculinity and femininity that assumes both constructs are orthogonal to one another, and individuals of any gender expression can vary widely on scores of both masculinity and femininity at the same time.

H3

Ratings of perceived masculinity will be higher for male confederates in the less expressive conditions than in the more expressive conditions.

H4

Ratings of perceived femininity will be higher for male confederates in the more expressive conditions than in the less expressive conditions.

H5

There will be no significant differences in ratings of perceived femininity for female confederates regardless of the expressiveness condition.

Given the impact of gendered identity norms and widely-held perceptions of differences in behavior (regardless of the actual validity of these perceptions) it is also expected that individuals will associate more-expressive behaviors as generally less normatively heterosexual across the board than less-expressive behaviors. While heterosexuality is unlikely to be attributed differentially to different sexes across all expressiveness conditions, there is likely an interaction effect such that participants are less likely to view expressive men as heterosexual than are any of the other three conditions (i.e., less expressive men, more expressive women, and less expressive women).

H6

There will be a main effect for ratings of confederate heterosexuality by expressiveness condition, with ratings of heterosexuality lower in the more expressive condition.

H7

There will be no main effect for ratings of confederate heterosexuality by confederate sex.

H8

There will be an interaction effect for ratings of confederate heterosexuality by both expressiveness condition and confederate sex, such that participants rate male confederates who are more expressive as significantly less heterosexual than any of the other three conditions.

Finally, it is expected that participants may also associate more-expressive behaviors as generally less normatively masculine or “manly” across the board than less expressive behaviors. In addition, people are more likely to associate a traditionally-male name with greater masculinity or manliness than a traditionally-female name, simply due to traditional sex expectations regardless of actual behavior. Finally, perceptions of masculinity or manliness are likely to be more common with less expressive male interaction partners, with ratings of masculinity and/or manliness higher than would be expected based upon the additive effects of gender and expressivity for the other three combinations (i.e., more expressive men, more expressive women, and less expressive women).

H9

There will be a main effect for expressiveness on perceptions of confederates’ masculinity/manliness, such that confederates in the less expressive conditions are seen as more masculine/manly than are confederates in the more expressive conditions.

H10

There will be a main effect for perceived confederate sex on perceptions of confederates’ masculinity/manliness, such that male confederates are seen as more masculine/manly than are female confederates.

H11

There will be an interaction effect between perceived confederate sex and expressiveness, such that male confederates in the less expressive condition will be seen as significantly more masculine/manly than would otherwise be predicted by main effects alone.

Methods

Results

Discussion

This study scrutinized the impact of expressivity on perceptions of masculinity and heterosexuality of an unknown others using text messaging. Given the diverse population from which the sample was selected, the findings are likely more generalizable across North American contexts than are studies with significantly more homogenous samples. As reviewed above, the vast majority of our hypotheses based upon this sample were in fact supported, confirming past research and extending our understanding of the emojis and exclamation points that many of us use in our daily lives. As expected, this more expressive form of communication is preferred, but that preferential option does not come without a cost for unknown others. While the initial impact of these findings are likely attenuated as relationships develop, the use of dating applications or even cold-calling in a professional setting may not allow for attributions and expectations to be confirmed or attenuated as those relationships may not emerge beyond initial impressions.

While it seems as though we have better attitudes towards a conversation when people are using emojis, at the same time it does tend to impinge upon one’s ability to present the self as masculine. For many men (and women) across many contexts, this may not be problematic. In fact, a comfort with self-expression may prove even more attractive to an unknown other in many contexts. At the same time, for some individuals this emotional response related to being perceived as different could prove distressing or even challenging to a personal sense of self. Of course, this is likely only the case in situations of messaging between unknown others, rather than in established relationships, so it may only serve to limit the ultimate number of relationships where both parties desire a certain type of dating or interaction partner.

Although most of our research was supported, one interesting area of note arose with regards to the fourth hypothesis, which predicted that participants’ ratings of the research confederate’s perceived femininity would be higher for male confederates in the more expressive conditions than in the less expressive conditions. Interestingly, this was a robust finding despite a much larger standard deviation for the more expressive condition, highlighting that there is much greater difference in the variation of interpretation of femininity (based upon more expressive messaging) than there is for either less expressive messaging or for interpretations of masculinity. That is, we have a more clearly defined understanding of what it means for men to be masculine, while we have a less clearly defined set of cultural presumptions for what it means for men to be feminine.

Another noteworthy finding related directly to the fifth hypothesis, which predicted that there would be no significant differences in ratings of perceived femininity for female confederates regardless of the expressiveness condition. Unexpectedly, female confederates were rated as significantly more feminine in the more expressive conditions than in the less expressive conditions. Not only that, but this did not appear to be tied only to femininity. In a post hoc analysis we found that participants’ perceptions of female confederates’ masculinity were also tied to expressiveness, with participants rating female confederates as significantly more masculine (F = 5.04, p = .03) in the less expressive conditions (m = 3.06, sd = 1.01) than in the more expressive conditions (m = 2.43, sd = .91).

The eighth hypothesis predicted an interaction effect, and while one emerged, it was not in the exact manner that was expected. The interaction effect that emerged related to ratings of confederate heterosexuality by both expressiveness and confederate sex, but it was found that male confederates who are less expressive are rated as significantly more heterosexual than are more expressive confederate males and any confederate females (regardless of expressiveness). This seems to indicate that we have clear scripts for heterosexual men’s communication in ways that we don’t have for women’s communication, such that women’s and men’s sexuality is relatively ambiguous if they are communicating in an expressive manner, but that one’s use of inexpressive communication is typically seen as “straight” for the perceived sexuality of otherwise-unknown men.

Finally, one of the interesting findings in this study related to the researchers’ interest about whether fear of sexual misidentification—that is, being perceived to be a sexual orientation different than one’s actual orientation—might have some influence on evaluations of the interaction partner. Past research has shown that this variable (previously and possibly-incorrectly called homophobia) used to have an impact on perceptions formed during interactions, as individuals perhaps tried to minimize their own “exposure” by avoiding being identified with someone of a different orientation. However, in this research study, this variable was only significantly correlated with other unrelated evaluations of the self (e.g., one’s own description of the self as “manly”) and had no significant correlations with ratings of the conversational partner. Such a finding indicates that while this fear of sexual misidentification still exists, it may not color our interactions with others to the same extent that it did historically.

Looking forward, future research might incorporate other forms of expressiveness beyond emojis and exclamation points, perhaps including the possible role of animated gifts in text messaging which often contain a more complex message that can include the use of humor (even in a sad or negative overall animated image). Given much research on men and their use of humor with male friends, one might explore gender-typing in the expected usage of humorous gifts to convey emotional content across a variety of situations. Additionally, future research might also include a more nuanced script that allows for greater deviation, in order to do a content analysis on the actual responses of gender-identified participants. Such a move would also require an increasingly diverse set of participants in order to have meaningful comparisons about the behaviors of participants beyond traditional (and increasingly outdated) understandings of the treated-as-binary identities of male/female and straight/gay. This is an important future direction to help us to greater understand not only the perceptions one holds about an interaction partner, but also the reactions that one might have to an interaction partner. At the same time, given that the sample used in this study consisted primarily of digital natives born after the widespread use of text-based mobile communication technologies, one must be careful about applying the results of this research too broadly to include older generations who might not have the same ubiquitous experience with text messaging across their life spans. As anxieties about being perceived as feminine might trend downward in future generations, so also will the proportion of digital natives necessarily increase dramatically over time.

Regardless of the potential for additional exploration of these concepts, the current project greatly impacts our conceptualizations of how individuals form impressions about an unknown other based on the expressivity of their messaging. Indeed, the implications are significant and prove to be varied based upon the expressed gender of that unknown other and also based upon one’s own expectations about general messaging norms. The implications for a variety of mediated forms of messaging cannot be understated, and have great utility for coaching and supporting individuals who use text-based forms of communication in the workplace and—to an even greater degree—in a possible quest to create even more interpersonal relationships in their own lives.