To Express or to End? Personality Traits Are Associated With the Reasons and Patterns for Using Emojis and Stickers

Abstract

Emojis and stickers are becoming increasingly popular in computer-mediated communications. The present study examined the associations between personality traits and people's reasons and patterns for using both emojis and stickers. Participants (n = 312) completed three online questionnaires assessing shyness, the Big Five personality traits, and why and how they used emojis and stickers. Results revealed that shyness, neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness were correlated with different reasons of usage. Moreover, some participants exhibited a tendency to adjust frequency of usage depending on who the target person was and whether they were in a private or group chat. People who showed such tendencies were found to differ in personality with those who did not. Some differences in usage patterns were also observed between emojis and stickers. Together, the present study has produced more insight into how emojis and stickers can help people with different personality traits to achieve different purposes in their daily communication.

What Makes Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Paid Stickers in Personal Messenger? The Role of Personality and Motivational Factors

“…For example, Li et al (2018) suggested that negative emojis are negatively related to emotional stability, and positive emojis are positively related to extraversion. Recently, Liu and Sun (2020) studied the correlation between personality types and the reasons for using stickers and found that each personality type was differently correlated with the reasons for using stickers. The results are very interesting because if the reason for using emojis and stickers varies depending on personality and affects the intention to purchase, presenting stickers that suit people’s motivation for using them can positively impact purchase decisions.…”

Perceptual Attributes of Human-Like Animal Stickers as Nonverbal Cues Encoding Social Expressions in Virtual Communication

“…Pigs and ducks were judged as less cuter than other animals to express agreement 35 , commitment 36 , grievance 37 , fun 38 . Refusal was judged as less cute than gratitude and happiness in cats 39 . Sadness was rated less cuter than other expressions in dog 40 .…”

“…22 happiness: t = 2.62, p = .009; fear: t = 2.32, p = .02; commitment: t = 2.39, p = .02 23 dog: t = 2.62, p = .009; duck: t = 3.18, p = .002; rabbit: t = 3.47, p = .0006 24 happiness: t = 2.59, p = .01; commitment: t = 2.29, p = .03 25 happiness: t = 2.09, p = .04; shyness: t = 2.06, p = .05 26 agreement: t = 3.30, p = .002; commitment: t = 5.84, p < .0001; grievance: t = 3.07, p = .004; gratitude: t = 2.39, p = .02; fun: t = 2.16, p = .04 27 cat>duck: t = 2.91, p = .03; dog>duck: t = 3.18, p = .02; pig>duck: t = 4.24, p = .001; rabbit>duck: t = 3.27, p = .01 28 dog>duck: t = 3.12, p = .02 29 cat>dog: t = 4.37, p = .0003; cat>duck: t = 4.37, p = .0003; cat>pig: t = 2.86, p = .04; cat>rabbit: t = 3.12, p = .02 30 cat>duck: t = 3.43, p = .008; cat>pig: t = 3.26, p = .01 31 cat>dog: t = 3.69, p = .003; cat>duck: t = 3.85, p = .002; cat>pig: t = 4.36, p = .0003 32 gratitude>fear: t = 3.58, p = .02; shyness>fear: t = 3.76, p = .01; gratitude>refusal: t = 4.68, p = .01; greeting>refusal: t = 3.39, p = .04; shyness>refusal: t = 4.86, p = .01. 33 cat>duck: t = 2.90, p = .04; cat>pig: t = 2.90, p = .04, gratitude: cat>dog: t = 2.96, p = .02; cat>duck: t = 4.54, p = .001; cat>pig: t = 2.96, p = .03; rabbit>duck: t = 3.16, p = .02 34 cat>dog: t = 3.70, p = .003; cat>duck: t = 2.96, p = .03 35 dog>pig: t = 3.31, p = .01; rabbit>pig: t = 3.01, p = .03 36 cat>duck: t = 3.91, p = .002; dog>duck: t = 3.62, p = .004; pig>duck: t = 2.84, p = .04; rabbit>duck: t = 5.47, p = .001 37 cat>duck: t = 2.91, p = .04; dog>duck: t = 3.64, p = .004; dog>pig: t = 3.00, p = .03; rabbit>duck: t = 4.46, p = .0002; rabbit>pig: t = 3.82, p = .002 38 cat>duck: t = 2.94, p = .03; dog>duck: t = 2.94, p = .03 39 gratitude>refusal: t = 3.42, p = .03; happiness>refusal: t = 3.32, p = .05 40 agreement>sadness: t = 4.69, p = .01; commitment>sadness: t = 3.37, p = .04; fun>sadness: t = 3.78, p = .01; grievance>sadness: t = 3.88, p = .01 41 commitment>anger: t = 3.43, p = .03; commitment>refusal: t = 3.63, p = .02…”

“…On the other hand, the perceived unexpected use of human expression by a real animal gets more salient and may cognitively result in a conflict which requires monitoring and resolution (for example, to reason why a real-animal expresses a human-like expression; to think of a conversational context when such use can be accommodated). Further studies could be developed to see whether the experience of using social media is associated with the motivation of using an animal sticker [39].…”

Do You Get What I Mean?!? The Undesirable Outcomes of (Ab)Using Paralinguistic Cues in Computer-Mediated Communication

“…Social information processing theory suggests that paralinguistic cues are utilized in place of non-verbal cues to overcome CMC limitations of lack of social presence ( Walther, 2007 , 2016 ). Overall, paralinguistic cues have been argued to enrich the expressiveness of the text, disambiguate it, convey affect and a sense of immediacy, and emphasize intended statements ( Aldunate and González-Ibáñez, 2017 ; Prada et al, 2018 ; Liu and Sun, 2020 ). However, some empirical research that examined interpretation of paralinguistic cues in textual communication has challenged this notion.…”