1. Introduction
With the rise of the Internet, social media has gradually become a platform for us to express ourselves, share our lives, and entertain ourselves. Social media is becoming more and more functional and technologically perfect, and communication is becoming more and more convenient and easy. Emojis are gradually appearing among the public, and more and more people will use them. The history of emojis can be traced back to 1982 when the ASCLL “:-” character was first typed on an electronic bulletin board by Prof. Scott Elliott Fahlman of Carnegie Mellon University in the U.S.A. to indicate a smiley-face emotion, which is considered to be the first symbolic emojis in the history of humanity[1]. With the popularization of the Internet, a series of more complex emojis gradually evolved. Nowadays, emojis are no longer limited to the form of text characters but have evolved into the form of emojis that contain pictures and even moving images. In the text, we refer to all forms of emoticons as emojis.
The use of emojis increases the emotional and dynamic nature of the text, bringing them closer to each other, making the text that may have been difficult to understand better readable, and better conveying the emojis and feelings to be expressed to each other. However, there are times when the sending of emojis can cause misunderstandings, such as when the same emojis are displayed in different systems due to different cell phone systems and when the same emoji is displayed in other systems because of the deviation in looks.
This paper examines and discusses various aspects of whether adolescents between the ages of 15 and 25 use different emojis depending on who they are receiving. This study mainly researched through questionnaires to find answers to the questions.
2. Literature review
In recent years, emojis have become a hot research topic in the field of media, and since 2015, the number of papers has gradually increased and reached the top in 2017-2019[2]. The research on emojis involves a variety of fields, such as psychology, marketing, linguistics, etc. Many papers provide comprehensive summaries and analyses of emojis, focusing on the diversity of cultures and platforms on the use of emojis, the role and impact of emojis, as well as their properties and characteristics in communication. Research on whether young people aged 15-25 use different emojis depending on the recipient. Scholars generally agree that the choice and use of emojis are influenced by the recipient. Different social contacts (such as friends, family, and classmates) affect people’s choice of different emojis to communicate information and express emojis.
2.1. Emojis in digital communication
Emojis have been described as the equivalent of the nonverbal aspects of face-to-face communication- facial expressions and gestures relating to the delivery of emotion and intent[3]. Thus, when emojis are integrated into text-based communication, this gap is filled in the absence of such cues; ambiguity is reduced, and messages get richer[4]. Such increased emotional expressiveness in digital communication is related to improved interpersonal relationships and satisfaction[5].
2.2. Age and emoji usage
Chen et al.[6] studied emoji usage across different age groups and found that younger individuals, particularly those aged 15–25, are more adept and frequent users of emojis compared to older demographics. Prada et al.[7] studied the behavior of digital natives and found that growing up with technology, this age group is comfortable expressing their emotions, establishing identity, and developing social connections with emojis. On the other hand, Kaye et al. [8] conducted a study on emoji usage by older adults and discovered that they use emojis less frequently, probably interpreting them in a different way, which might cause several misunderstandings.
2.3. Contextual factors influencing emoji use
Kelly and Watts[9] explored how contextual factors influence emoji usage and found that the use of emojis is highly dependent on factors such as the communication platform, the relationship between communicators, and the nature of the conversation. Rodrigues[10] explored how individuals adjusted using emojis between different social contexts. He showed that the use of emojis varies between subjects based on norms and expectations within different settings. Li et al.[11] studied how people use emojis in personal and professional contexts. In their findings, they found that people used more informal, expressive emojis in conversations with friends, whereas in professional or formal contexts would prefer minimal or conservative emoji expressions.
2.4. Recipient influence on emoji selection
Schroeder and Epley[12] investigated the role of the recipient’s identity in determining emoji usage and found that individuals tailor their communication style, including emoji selection, to align with the recipient’s preferences and the nature of their relationship. For example, Cheng[13] did investigate the sensitivity to recipient dynamics of young adults. Indeed, from this study, he established that these people do make adjustments in emoji use with the goal of increasing clarity and avoiding possible misinterpretation. They might use playful or affectionate emojis with close peers while opting for neutral or formal emojis when communicating with authority figures or elders.
2.5. Emojis and social relationships
Riordan[14] investigated the impacts of emojis on social relationships and found that emojis were critical to maintaining and developing one's social relationships because of the facilitation of emotional expression and relational intent. In a study conducted by Derks et al.[4], it was investigated as to how emojis provide users with an avenue to express subtleties like sarcasm, humor, or affection whose fine shades meant everything in establishing rapport and fostering closeness. Gesselman et al.[5] investigated the strategic use of emojis and discovered that it can enhance social presence and relational closeness, especially in online environments where nonverbal cues are limited.
2.6. Cultural and platform variations
Park et al.[15] examined the influence of cultural factors on emoji interpretation and found that differences in cultural norms and communication styles lead to varied understandings of the same emoji. Yuki et al.[16] examined emotional perception in Eastern and Western cultures, finding evidence that such cultures focus attention on different facial features when interpreting emotions, thereby extending their way of perceiving emojis. Miller et al.[17] investigated the platform and device issues that give rise to variations in emoji design and presentation, and they did find that these variations can have implications of altering intended meaning and, therefore lead to miscommunication.
2.7. Gaps in existing research
Despite the growing body of literature on emoji usage, there is a notable gap concerning how young adults adjust their emoji use based on the recipient. While studies acknowledge that context and recipient characteristics affect communication styles[8], there is limited research focusing specifically on the 15–25 age group and their strategic adaptation of emoji use in different relational contexts.
2.8. Recent research developments
Recent studies have begun to explore the ways in which emojis are employed as a means of communication. For example, Stark and Crawford[18] have explored how emojis contribute to the conservatism of digital communication, underlining their reinforcement of social norms. Highfield and Leaver[19], meanwhile, have examined emoji use for identity building on social networking sites, underlining the importance of self-presentation among young people.
Also, research by Jaeger[20] explores the emotive effect of emojis on relationships between consumers and brands. His work referenced how emojis can influence perceptions and ET. These diverse studies reveal a range of roles for emojis in digital communication; however, they usually overlook adjustments young adults make according to the recipient.
3. Methodology
In this study, a quantitative research method was used, and we collected a total of almost 100 questionnaires by distributing the questionnaires through the Internet. after collecting the data from almost 100 questionnaires, we closed the channel of completing the questionnaires. We created questionnaires and collected data through the app “wjx.” We distributed the questionnaires on our web page and circle of friends and forwarded them online to family, friends, etc.
We collected the public's use of social media platforms as well as emojis, then filtered out the 15-25-year-olds, compared the 15-25-year-olds with other age groups, and finally, targeted in-depth research and discussion on whether the 15-25-year-old group would use different emojis depending on the recipient. We set some questions in the beginning part of the questionnaire to gather the respondents' basic information, which can better identify them. In the middle part, we set questions that can help to know the respondents' use of social media, such as what platforms they use, how long they use them, what activities they do on the platforms, and so on. Then, we combine the use of social media platforms with the use of emojis to understand the situation, which helps to lead to a more directly related to the thesis gradually, provide more ideas for our research, and finally, to understand the use of emojis by the respondents and their views on emojis, which helps us to find out more from the survey.
The primary purpose of this study is to investigate whether adolescents aged 15-25 years old use different emojis depending on the object and to study the reasons behind it to find out the answer to the question.
4. Analysis and results
4.1. Demographic profile of respondents
Characteristics |
15-25 Age Group (n=60) |
26 and Above (n=40) |
Total (N=100) |
Gender |
|||
Male |
33 (55%) |
22 (55%) |
55 (55%) |
Female |
27 (45%) |
18 (45%) |
45 (45%) |
Education Level |
|||
High School or Below |
15 (25%) |
11 (27.5%) |
26 (26%) |
Vocational Training |
15 (25%) |
8 (20%) |
23 (23%) |
University Degree |
25 (42%) |
20 (50%) |
45 (45%) |
Postgraduate Degree |
5 (8%) |
1 (2.5%) |
6 (6%) |
Note: Percentages are within each age group.
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of respondents, including gender and education level, which illustrates that the survey respondents are mainly high school (26%) and college students (45%). Our sample size is young, ranging from 15 to 25 years old, so they are still in school. Besides, gender is random.
4.2. Preferred social media platforms and activities
The study reveals distinct preferences in social media platform usage and activities between the younger and older age groups.
Individuals aged 15-25 predominantly use Douyin and Xiaohongshu, with 75% and 70% usage respectively. In contrast, those aged 26 and above prefer Kuaishou, with a 70% usage rate. In addition, the most common activities among the 15-25 age group are liking content (80%) and commenting using text (70%) and emojis (60%). For those aged 26 and above, liking content is also prevalent (85%), but there is a significant drop in commenting with emojis (20%).
4.3. Types of emojis usage and used with different audiences
Audience |
Always/Often Use Emojis (15-25 Age Group) |
Always/Often Use Emojis (26+ Age Group) |
Friends |
48 (80%) |
10 (25%) |
Family |
30 (50%) |
8 (20%) |
Older Individuals |
15 (25%) |
6 (15%) |
Colleagues/Classmates |
42 (70%) |
12 (30%) |
Audience |
A Funny (%) |
B Cute (%) |
C Formal/ Polite (%) |
D Sarcastic (%) |
E Impolite (%) |
F Exaggerated (%) |
G Other (%) |
H Don’t Use Emoj is (%) |
Friends |
20% |
18.1% |
16.19% |
14.29% |
8.57% |
15.24% |
7.62% |
0% |
Family |
15.24% |
9.52% |
19.05% |
10.48% |
15.24% |
18.1% |
12.38% |
0% |
Older Individuals |
17.14% |
13.33% |
20% |
3.81% |
12.38% |
20% |
13.33% |
0% |
Colleagues/ Classmates |
14.29% |
15.24% |
20% |
11.43% |
19.05% |
13.33% |
6.67% |
0% |
Table 2 shows the frequency of emoji use with different audiences. Young individuals frequently use emojis when communicating with friends (80%) and classmates (70%), but the frequency decreases when interacting with family (50%) and older individuals (25%). In contrast, older adults have a low frequency of emoji usage across all audiences. Table 3 shows how emoji preferences differ when communicating with various audiences, such as friends, family, older individuals, and colleagues or classmates.
The preference for different types of emojis in various contexts reflects an understanding of social appropriateness. When engaging with older individuals or in professional contexts, the usage of formal and polite emojis increases significantly (20%) to convey respect and maintain decorum. Young people are mindful of the potential for miscommunication, especially with older individuals who may not share the same familiarity with emoji culture.
Responding to a partner through a combination of text and emojis builds a higher level of closeness[21], and young people are likely to consider the preferences and communication style of the person they are interacting. If they know that the other person enjoys emojis and uses them frequently, they may be more inclined to use them in their messages, which strengthens communication within the platform as well as maintains and enhances social relationships[14]. Our research result is consistent with the findings of 2016 and 2017. This suggests a social awareness and sensitivity to appropriateness when choosing emojis based on the audience. The younger demographic predominantly uses funny and cute emojis when communicating with friends in order to foster a sense of camaraderie and shared humor. However, they use formal and polite emojis with older individuals to convey respect and maintain decorum.
4.4. Proportion and reasons for adjusting emoji use
Response |
% of Respondents |
% of Respondents |
Yes |
51 |
85% |
No |
9 |
15% |
I don’t use emojis |
0 |
0 |
Table 4 shows the proportion of changing the use of emoticons based on the different recipients. It reveals that maximum of 85% of the respondent say that they do change their use of emojis based on the recipient. Only 15% of the respondents indicating they do not.
Reason |
No. of Respondents |
% of Respondents |
Elders may not understand emojis |
42 |
70% |
Fear of offending |
36 |
60% |
Fear of misinterpretation |
30 |
50% |
To fit in with peers |
25 |
42% |
To shape one’s image |
20 |
33% |
Table 5 shows reasons for adjusting emoji use, such as elders may not understand emojis, fear of offending, fear of misinterpretation, to fit in with peers, and to shape one’s image. While emojis have visual similarities, its interpretation is influenced by cultural context, technological differences and its own visual characteristics[23]. Our research findings confirm this viewpoint. The primary concern among young users is that elders may not comprehend emojis, leading to miscommunication (70% of respondents). This indicates a generational gap in digital literacy and familiarity with emoji language. The fear of offending or being misunderstood further influences their decision to adjust emoji usage based on the audience (60% and 50% of respondents, respectively). These reasons mainly stem from cultural differences, communication styles, and varying levels of understanding among different audience groups.
The adjustment of emoji usage based on the audience demonstrates social awareness and adaptability. Research by Berengueres and Castro[23] indicated that there are differences in the understanding of emojis, and for the same negative emoji, there can be a 26 % difference in the emotional feelings of the sender and the receiver. So, the younger demographic adjusts their emoji usage based on the audience. They aim to avoid any conflicts or discomfort hence they may choose to avoid using emojis when communicating with different audience groups.
4.5. Perceived benefits of using emojis
Benefit |
No. of Respondents |
% of Respondents |
Conveying emotions |
48 |
80% |
Expressing information accurately |
45 |
75% |
Increasing interest/fun |
36 |
60% |
Enhancing communication efficiency |
30 |
50% |
Closing social distance |
24 |
40% |
Table 6 shows loads of benefits when using emojis. A significant majority of young respondents recognize emojis as valuable tools for conveying emotions (80%) and expressing information more accurately (75%). Emojis seem to be a simple and intuitive way to express emotions[5], which in turn improves the efficiency of online communication, provides emotional value to the user, and makes interactions more enjoyable.
Emojis can help users strategically and dynamically choose the best way to express their emotions, opinions, or intentions to achieve communication fluency[24]. This is particularly important in an era where digital interactions often replace face-to-face conversations. According to our research, it can be concluded that emojis play a crucial role for young people in connecting and enhancing communication. Firstly, young individuals are inclined towards visual perception and are adept at interpreting images and symbols. Emojis serve as visual representations of emotions, expressions, and reactions, enriching text-based conversations. By incorporating this visual element, emojis effectively convey tones and emotions that are sometimes difficult to express through written words, making communication more engaging and meaningful. Secondly, emojis have evolved into a universal language that transcends cultural and linguistic barriers. Regardless of their backgrounds or native languages, young people can utilize emojis to communicate and understand emotions, thus diminishing the reliance on verbal expressions alone. This shared visual communication fosters deeper connections and mutual understanding among individuals, helping bridge cultural divides. In essence, emojis act as a visual aid that elevates communication, facilitates emotional expression, nurtures cultural empathy, strengthens social bonds among youth, bridges communication disparities, and cultivates more appealing and relevant interactions. Hence, it confirms that our previous viewpoint is consistent with other researcher[24].
4.6. Importance of emojis on social media platforms
Platform |
Always Use Emojis (%) |
Occasionally Use Emojis (%) |
Never Use Emojis (%) |
Xiaohongshu |
30(50%) |
25(41.66%) |
5(8.33%) |
Douyin |
35(58.3%) |
17(28.33%) |
8(13.33%) |
|
40(66.66%) |
15(25%) |
5(8.33%) |
|
20(33.33%) |
25(41.66%) |
15(25%) |
Kuaishou |
15(25%) |
20(33.33%) |
25(41.66%) |
|
14(23.33%) |
25(41.66%) |
21(35%) |
Table 7 shows the responses regarding how often individuals use emojis across different platforms. The majority of respondents occasionally use emojis, with usage rates above 50% on all platforms. Emojis appear to play a substantial role, especially on platforms like Douyin, Xiaohongshu, and WeChat. WeChat has the highest percentage of users who always use emojis (66.66%), as its diverse emoji selection makes it convenient for users to express themselves accurately and engage in fun and interactive conversations?
Platform diversity is one of the most important factors influencing emoji use, and the presentation style or structure of emojis on different social platforms affects users' preferred choice of emojis[2]. Emojis add a layer of emotion and cultural resonance to communication on the platform, enhancing the overall social experience for users. Users have unique preferences when using emojis on different platforms[2], enhancing the connection and communication between users with different platforms. Through our investigation results, we found that the relationship between the popularity of platforms and the frequency of using emojis can be seen in the following aspects. To begin with, the enhanced user experience and functionality offered by popular platforms encourage increased communication and interaction among users which heightened engagement often leads to greater use of emojis as a means to express emotions, inject humor, and enrich communication content, thereby amplifying the platform's appeal and interactivity. Additionally, the broad spectrum of user demographics attracted to popular platforms fosters a more diverse and enriched communication environment. Embracing emojis as a tool for accommodating various user preferences and expression styles has become a prevailing practice in this context. Finally, popular platforms drive the prevalence of emoji usage, while user demand for emojis spurs platforms to introduce additional features and resources that cater to users' emotional expression and communication needs. To sum up, our conclusion also confirms this viewpoint.
4.7. Influence of receiving emojis on perception of the sender
Option |
Count |
Percentage |
Frequently Changes |
10 |
16.66% |
Sometimes Changes |
25 |
41.66% |
Rarely Changes |
6 |
10% |
Never Changes |
9 |
15% |
Total Respondents |
60 |
100% |
Impression |
Count |
Percentage |
Funny |
35 |
33.33% |
Interesting |
66 |
62.86% |
Outgoing |
57 |
54.29% |
Warm |
41 |
39.05% |
Reliable |
32 |
30.48% |
Confident |
14 |
13.33% |
Rational |
11 |
10.48% |
Cute |
5 |
4.76% |
Lively |
2 |
1.9% |
Optimistic |
4 |
3.81% |
Dismissive |
3 |
2.86% |
Aloof |
5 |
4.76% |
Introverted |
2 |
1.9% |
Other |
11 |
10.48% |
Table 8 shows how often respondents' perception of a message sender changes upon receiving emojis. Table 9 shows impressions formed about a person when they use emojis in their messages.
Emojis can be used for strategic motives such as self-presentation, impression management, establishing social presence, and maintaining social status[25]. A large proportion of respondents (41.66%) indicated that receiving emojis sometimes alters their impression of the sender. The majority of respondents associate emoji use with positive traits such as being interesting (62.86%) and outgoing (54.29%). This suggests that the use of emojis is also related to interpersonal relationships[26], and emojis can contribute to forming favorable perceptions in social interactions. However, a small proportion also associate emoji use with dismissiveness or aloofness, indicating that inappropriate or excessive use could lead to negative impressions
A smaller percentage frequently change their perception based on emoji usage because emojis are just one element of communication, and while they may have a short-term impact on impressions, they are usually not enough to cause frequent changes in impressions. Impressions are formed through a combination of factors, including language, behavior, attitude, and other aspects.
5. Interpretation and discussion of findings
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the young population aged 15-25 use emojis according to different recipients. This study found that approximately 68% of young respondents adjust their use of emojis based on the recipient. The reasons for adjusting emoji use are elders may not comprehend emojis and can not explain them well, and fear of offending or being misunderstood. This suggests a conscious effort to tailor communication to suit the audience’s preferences and understanding. Another founding is that when communicating with friends, young individuals prefer funny, cute, and exaggerated emojis. However, with elders or in formal contexts, they opt for formal and polite emojis, which indicates an awareness of social norms and the appropriateness of certain expressions in different contexts.
It was not surprising to see that older adults use emojis less frequently, and when they do, it’s often in a limited capacity. This contrasts sharply with the younger demographic’s pervasive use of emojis across various communication platforms. However, one unanticipated result was that face-to-face communication has decreased. Less than half of the young respondents frequently engage in face-to-face communication. Digital communication methods, including messaging apps and social media, dominate their interactions.
As might be expected, young people use different emojis according to the target audience and emojis play a significant role in modern communication, serving as essential tools for expressing emotions, constructing self-identity[27], and enhancing the overall communication experience.
6. Conclusion
The method of collecting data through a survey questionnaire used in this study has certain limitations due to the small sample size and reliance on self-reported data. Some respondents may not have taken the survey seriously and just filled in the answers randomly, which may lead to insufficient sample representativeness. A small sample size will make the research results unable to show universality, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn. For future research, we could expand the sample size and include a more diverse range of participants to further validate the findings. We could also incorporate qualitative research methods to explore the underlying reasons for emoji usage patterns and how they affect interpersonal relationships and communication effectiveness.
In conclusion, this study shows that young people aged 15-25 use different emojis depending on the receiver. Emojis play an important role in the communication practices of 15-25-year-olds, which enrich communication between people. They are not only a tool for expressing emotions but also a means of understanding social relations and cultural norms. Young people aged 15-25 use different types of emojis when communicating online to quickly establish and maintain relationships with different recipients. The conscious adaptation of emojis according to the background and culture of the recipients suggests that each individual's understanding of emojis varies greatly, reflecting that emojis are very influential people's online behaviours and interaction patterns.
Acknowledgement
Herui Xu, Mingwen Guo, Tiannuo Wei contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.
References
[1]. Fan, Rui. (2018). Youth Discourse Expression and Educational Response Behind the Popularity of Emoji Packets. Journal of Shandong Youth Politics College, 34(3), 52-56.
[2]. Bai, Q. , Dan, Q. , Mu, Z. , & Yang, M. (2019). A Systematic Review of Emoji: Current Research and Future Perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. doi:10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 02221
[3]. Dresner, E. , & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the Nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and Illocutionary Force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268. https://doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1468-2885. 2010. 01362. x
[4]. Derks, D. , Bos, A. E. , & Von Grumbkow, J. (2008). Emoticons in Computer-Mediated Communication: Social Motives and Social Context. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(1), 99–101. https://doi. org/10. 1089/cpb. 2007. 9926
[5]. Gesselman, A. N. , Ta, V. P. , & Garcia, J. R. (2019). Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PLOS ONE, 14(8). doi:10. 1371/journal. pone. 0221297
[6]. Chen, Z. , Lu, X. , Ai, W. , Li, H. , Mei, Q. , & Liu, X. (2018). Through a gender lens: Learning usage patterns of emojis from large-scale Android users. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, 763–772. https://doi. org/ 10. 1145/3038912. 3052671
[7]. Prada, M. , Rodrigues, D. L. , Garrido, M. V. , Lopes, J. , Cavalheiro, B. , & Gaspar, R. (2018). Motives, Frequency and Attitudes toward Emoji and Emoticon Use. Telematics and Informatics, 35(7), 1925–1934. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j. tele. 2018. 06. 005
[8]. Kaye, L. K. , Wall, H. J. , & Malone, S. A. (2016). “Turn That Frown Upside- Down”: A Contextual Account of Emoticon Usage on Different Virtual Platforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 463–467. https://doi. org/10. 1016/ j. chb. 2016. 02. 088
[9]. Kelly, R. , & Watts, L. (2015). Characterising the Inventive Appropriation of Emoji as Relationally Meaningful in Mediated Close Personal Relationships.
[10]. Rodrigues, D. , Lopes, D. , Prada, M. , Thompson, D. , & Garrido, M. V. (2017). A frown emoji can be worth a thousand words: Perceptions of emoji use in text messages exchanged between romantic partners. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1532-1543.
[11]. Li, H. , Gao, B. , & Wang, X. (2022). An Empirical Study on the Communication and Usage Psychology of Emoji in Wechat. OBM Neurobiology, 6(4), 1-18.
[12]. Schroeder, J. , & Epley, N. (2016). Mistaking Minds and Machines: How Speech Affects Dehumanization and Anthropomorphism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1427–1437. https://doi. org/10. 1037/xge0000214
[13]. Cheng, L. (2017). DO I MEAN WHAT I SAY AND SAY WHAT I MEAN? A CROSSCULTURAL APPROACH TO THE USE OF EMOTICONS & EMOJIS IN CMC MESSAGES. Fonseca: Journal of Communication, (15).
[14]. Riordan, M. A. (2017). Emojis as Tools for Emotion Work: Communicating Affect in Text Messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(5), 549– 567. https://doi. org/10. 1177/0261927x17704238
[15]. Park, J. , Barash, V. , Fink, C. , & Cha, M. (2013). Emoticon Style: Interpreting Differences in Emoticons Across Cultures. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8(1). Retrieved from https://ojs. aaai. org/ index. php/ICWSM/article/view/14521
[16]. Yuki, M. , Maddux, W. W. , & Masuda, T. (2007). Are the Windows to the Soul the Same in the East and West? Cultural Differences in Using the Eyes and Mouth as Cues to Recognize Emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 303–311. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j. jesp. 2006. 02. 004
[17]. Miller, H. , Thebault-Spieker, J. , Chang, S. , Johnson, I. , Terveen, L. , & Hecht, B. (2016). “Blissfully Happy” or “Ready to Fight”: Varying Interpretations of Emoji. Proceedings of the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 259–268. Retrieved from https://ojs. aaai. org/index. php/ICWSM/article/view/14780
[18]. Stark, L. , & Crawford, K. (2015). The Conservatism of Emoji: Work, Affect, and Communication. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 205630511560485. https://doi. org/ 10. 1177/2056305115604853
[19]. Highfield, T. , & Leaver, T. (2016). Instagrammatics and Digital Methods: Studying Visual Social Media, from Selfies and GIFs to Memes and Emoji. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1), 47–62. https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/22041451. 2016. 1155332
[20]. Jaeger, S. R. , Roigard, C. M. , & Ares, G. (2018). Measuring consumers’ product associations with emoji and emotion word questionnaires: case studies with tasted foods and written stimuli. Food Research International, 111, 732-747. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodres. 2019. 01. 003
[21]. Wang, S. S. (2015). More Than Words? The Effect of Line Character Sticker Use on Intimacy in the Mobile Communication Environment. Social Science Computer Review, 34(4), 456–478. doi:10. 1177/0894439315590209
[22]. Bich-Carrière, L. (2019). Say it with [A Smiling Face with Smiling Eyes]: Judicial Use and Legal Challenges with Emoji Interpretation in Canada. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 32(2), 283–319. doi:10. 1007/s11196-018-9594-5
[23]. Berengueres, J. , & Castro, D. (2017). Differences in emoji sentiment perception between readers and writers. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). doi:10. 1109/bigdata. 2017. 8258461
[24]. Lim, S. S. (2015). On Stickers and Communicative Fluidity in Social Media. Social Media + Society, 1(1), 205630511557813. doi:10. 1177/2056305115578137
[25]. Lee, J. Y. , Hong, N. , Kim, S. , Oh, J. , & Lee, J. (2016). Smiley face. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct. https://doi. org/10. 1145/2957265. 2961858
[26]. Gaspar, R. , Barnett, J. , & Seibt, B. (2015). Crisis as seen by the individual: the Norm Deviation Approach / La crisis vista por el individuo: el Enfoque de la Desviación de la Norma. Psyecology, 6(1), 103–135. https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/21711976. 2014. 1002205
[27]. Ge, J. (2019). Emoji Sequence Use in Enacting Personal Identity. Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference on - WWW ’19. https://doi. org/ 10. 1145/3308560. 3316545
Cite this article
Xu,H.;Guo,M.;Wei,T. (2025). A Study of Young People Aged 15-25 Use Different Emojis Depending on the Recipient. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,101,64-75.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Global Politics and Socio-Humanities
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).
References
[1]. Fan, Rui. (2018). Youth Discourse Expression and Educational Response Behind the Popularity of Emoji Packets. Journal of Shandong Youth Politics College, 34(3), 52-56.
[2]. Bai, Q. , Dan, Q. , Mu, Z. , & Yang, M. (2019). A Systematic Review of Emoji: Current Research and Future Perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. doi:10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 02221
[3]. Dresner, E. , & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the Nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and Illocutionary Force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268. https://doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1468-2885. 2010. 01362. x
[4]. Derks, D. , Bos, A. E. , & Von Grumbkow, J. (2008). Emoticons in Computer-Mediated Communication: Social Motives and Social Context. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(1), 99–101. https://doi. org/10. 1089/cpb. 2007. 9926
[5]. Gesselman, A. N. , Ta, V. P. , & Garcia, J. R. (2019). Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PLOS ONE, 14(8). doi:10. 1371/journal. pone. 0221297
[6]. Chen, Z. , Lu, X. , Ai, W. , Li, H. , Mei, Q. , & Liu, X. (2018). Through a gender lens: Learning usage patterns of emojis from large-scale Android users. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, 763–772. https://doi. org/ 10. 1145/3038912. 3052671
[7]. Prada, M. , Rodrigues, D. L. , Garrido, M. V. , Lopes, J. , Cavalheiro, B. , & Gaspar, R. (2018). Motives, Frequency and Attitudes toward Emoji and Emoticon Use. Telematics and Informatics, 35(7), 1925–1934. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j. tele. 2018. 06. 005
[8]. Kaye, L. K. , Wall, H. J. , & Malone, S. A. (2016). “Turn That Frown Upside- Down”: A Contextual Account of Emoticon Usage on Different Virtual Platforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 463–467. https://doi. org/10. 1016/ j. chb. 2016. 02. 088
[9]. Kelly, R. , & Watts, L. (2015). Characterising the Inventive Appropriation of Emoji as Relationally Meaningful in Mediated Close Personal Relationships.
[10]. Rodrigues, D. , Lopes, D. , Prada, M. , Thompson, D. , & Garrido, M. V. (2017). A frown emoji can be worth a thousand words: Perceptions of emoji use in text messages exchanged between romantic partners. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1532-1543.
[11]. Li, H. , Gao, B. , & Wang, X. (2022). An Empirical Study on the Communication and Usage Psychology of Emoji in Wechat. OBM Neurobiology, 6(4), 1-18.
[12]. Schroeder, J. , & Epley, N. (2016). Mistaking Minds and Machines: How Speech Affects Dehumanization and Anthropomorphism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1427–1437. https://doi. org/10. 1037/xge0000214
[13]. Cheng, L. (2017). DO I MEAN WHAT I SAY AND SAY WHAT I MEAN? A CROSSCULTURAL APPROACH TO THE USE OF EMOTICONS & EMOJIS IN CMC MESSAGES. Fonseca: Journal of Communication, (15).
[14]. Riordan, M. A. (2017). Emojis as Tools for Emotion Work: Communicating Affect in Text Messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(5), 549– 567. https://doi. org/10. 1177/0261927x17704238
[15]. Park, J. , Barash, V. , Fink, C. , & Cha, M. (2013). Emoticon Style: Interpreting Differences in Emoticons Across Cultures. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8(1). Retrieved from https://ojs. aaai. org/ index. php/ICWSM/article/view/14521
[16]. Yuki, M. , Maddux, W. W. , & Masuda, T. (2007). Are the Windows to the Soul the Same in the East and West? Cultural Differences in Using the Eyes and Mouth as Cues to Recognize Emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 303–311. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j. jesp. 2006. 02. 004
[17]. Miller, H. , Thebault-Spieker, J. , Chang, S. , Johnson, I. , Terveen, L. , & Hecht, B. (2016). “Blissfully Happy” or “Ready to Fight”: Varying Interpretations of Emoji. Proceedings of the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 259–268. Retrieved from https://ojs. aaai. org/index. php/ICWSM/article/view/14780
[18]. Stark, L. , & Crawford, K. (2015). The Conservatism of Emoji: Work, Affect, and Communication. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 205630511560485. https://doi. org/ 10. 1177/2056305115604853
[19]. Highfield, T. , & Leaver, T. (2016). Instagrammatics and Digital Methods: Studying Visual Social Media, from Selfies and GIFs to Memes and Emoji. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1), 47–62. https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/22041451. 2016. 1155332
[20]. Jaeger, S. R. , Roigard, C. M. , & Ares, G. (2018). Measuring consumers’ product associations with emoji and emotion word questionnaires: case studies with tasted foods and written stimuli. Food Research International, 111, 732-747. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodres. 2019. 01. 003
[21]. Wang, S. S. (2015). More Than Words? The Effect of Line Character Sticker Use on Intimacy in the Mobile Communication Environment. Social Science Computer Review, 34(4), 456–478. doi:10. 1177/0894439315590209
[22]. Bich-Carrière, L. (2019). Say it with [A Smiling Face with Smiling Eyes]: Judicial Use and Legal Challenges with Emoji Interpretation in Canada. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 32(2), 283–319. doi:10. 1007/s11196-018-9594-5
[23]. Berengueres, J. , & Castro, D. (2017). Differences in emoji sentiment perception between readers and writers. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). doi:10. 1109/bigdata. 2017. 8258461
[24]. Lim, S. S. (2015). On Stickers and Communicative Fluidity in Social Media. Social Media + Society, 1(1), 205630511557813. doi:10. 1177/2056305115578137
[25]. Lee, J. Y. , Hong, N. , Kim, S. , Oh, J. , & Lee, J. (2016). Smiley face. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct. https://doi. org/10. 1145/2957265. 2961858
[26]. Gaspar, R. , Barnett, J. , & Seibt, B. (2015). Crisis as seen by the individual: the Norm Deviation Approach / La crisis vista por el individuo: el Enfoque de la Desviación de la Norma. Psyecology, 6(1), 103–135. https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/21711976. 2014. 1002205
[27]. Ge, J. (2019). Emoji Sequence Use in Enacting Personal Identity. Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference on - WWW ’19. https://doi. org/ 10. 1145/3308560. 3316545