ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Emoji as Affective Symbols: Affective Judgments of Emoji, Emoticons, and Human Faces Varying in Emotional Content.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-Burden Digital Phenotyping of Affective Risk: Positive Emoji Usage, Speech Rate, and Sleep Relate to College Student Mental Health.Research square · 2026Article
- From Social to Symbolic: Investigating the Neural Networks Involved in Emoji and Facial Expression Recognition.Brain topography · 2026Article
- Emoji-Dis: A dataset of emojis characterised in 13 discrete emotions.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Social anxiety and emoji use: gender differences and the role of loneliness in digital communication among college students.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Affective, semantic, frequency, and descriptive norms for 107 face emojis.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Linking repeated subjective judgments and ConvNets for multimodal assessment of the immediate living environment.MethodsX · 2024Article
- Drawing as a window to emotion with insights from tech-transformed participant images.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Is there an intergenerational discrepancy in the comprehension and aesthetic preference regarding emoji usage? Evidence from WeChat.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Nudge and bias in subjective ratings? The role of icon sets in determining ratings of icon characteristics.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Emotion recognition of faces and emoji in individuals with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury.Brain injury · 2023Article
- Emojis Are Comprehended Better than Facial Expressions, by Male Participants.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A study of dynamic emoji emotional responses based on rhythms and motion effects.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Are you really smiling? Display rules for emojis and the relationship between emotion management and psychological well-being.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Influence of Emojis on Online Trust Among College Students.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An important function of emoji as communicative symbols is to convey emotional content from sender to receiver in computer-mediated communication, e. g., WhatsApp. However, compared with real faces, pictures or words, many emoji are ambiguous because they do not symbolize a discrete emotion or feeling state. Thus, their meaning relies on the context of the message in which they are embedded. Previous studies investigated affective judgments of pictures, faces, and words suggesting that these stimuli show a typical distribution along the big two emotion dimensions of valence and arousal. Also, emoji and emoticons have been investigated recently for their affective significance. The present study extends previous research by investigating affective ratings of emoji, emoticons and human faces and by direct comparison between them. In total, 60 stimuli have been rated by 83 participants (eight males, age: 18-49 years), using the non-verbal Self-Assessment Manikin Scales for valence and arousal. The emotionality of the stimuli was measured on a 9-point Likert scale. The results show significant main effects of the factors "stimulus category" and "discrete emotion" including emotionality, valence and arousal. Also, the interaction between these two main factors was significant. Emoji elicited highest arousal, whereas stimuli related to happiness were rated highest in valence across stimulus categories. Angry emoji were rated highest in emotionality. Also, the discrete emotion was best recognized in emoji, followed by human face stimuli and lastly emoticons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.