We present an eye-tracking experiment examining moment-to-moment processes underlying the comprehension of emoticons. Younger (18–30) and older (65+) participants had their eye movements recorded while reading scenarios containing comments that were ambiguous between literal or sarcastic interpretations (e.g., But you’re so quick though). Comments were accompanied by wink emoticons or full stops. Results showed that participants read earlier parts of the wink scenarios faster than those with full stops, but then spent more time reading the text surrounding the emoticon. Thus, readers moved more quickly to the end of the text when there was a device that may aid interpretation but then spent more time processing the conflict between the superficially positive nature of the comment and the tone implied by the emoticon. Interestingly, the wink increased the likelihood of a sarcastic interpretation in younger adults only, suggesting that perceiver-related factors play an important role in emoticon interpretation.
AkutsuH.LeggeG. E.RossJ. A.SchuebelK. J. (1991). Psychophysics of reading: X. Effects of age-related changes in vision. Journal of Gerontology, 46, 325–331.
2.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
4.
ChannonS.PellijeffA.RuleA. (2005). Social cognition after head injury: Sarcasm and theory of mind. Brain and Language, 93, 123–134.
5.
ChoiW.LowderM. W.FerreiraF.SwaabT. Y.HendersonJ. M. (2017). Effects of word predictability and preview lexicality on eye movements during reading: A comparison between young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 32, 232–242.
6.
ColstonH. L. (2007). Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. In GibbsR. W.ColstonH. L. (Eds.), Irony in language and thought (pp. 319–338). Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
DearyI. J.CorleyJ.GowA. J.HarrisS. E.HoulihanL. M.MarioniR. E.. . . StarrJ. M. (2009). Age-associated cognitive decline. British Medical Bulletin, 92, 135–152.
8.
DegenJ.TanenhausM. K. (2019). Constraint-based pragmatic processing. In CumminsC.KatsosN. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
9.
DerksD.BosA. E. R.von GrumbkowJ. (2008). Emoticons and online message interpretation. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 379–388.
10.
DewsS.KaplanJ.WinnerE. (1995). Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes, 19, 347–367.
11.
FerrisF. L.BaileyI. L. (1996). Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies. Ophthalmology, 103, 181–182.
12.
FilikR.LeutholdH.WallingtonK.PageJ. (2014). Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 811–828.
13.
FilikR.MoxeyL. M. (2010). The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 116, 421–436.
14.
FilikR.ȚurcanA.ThompsonD.HarveyN.DaviesH.TurnerA. (2016). Sarcasm and emoticons: Comprehension and emotional impact. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 2130–2146.
15.
FolsteinM. F.FolsteinS. E.McHughP. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.
16.
FrazierL.RaynerK. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
17.
GibbsR. W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. In GernsbacherM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 411–446). Academic Press.
18.
GibbsR. W. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457–486.
19.
GioraR. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 183–206.
20.
GioraR. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press.
21.
GriceP. H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
22.
HancockJ. T. (2004). Verbal irony use in face-to-face and computer-mediated conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 447–463.
23.
HaradaC. N.Natelson LoveM. C.TriebelK. (2013). Normal cognitive aging. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 29, 737–752.
24.
IvankoS. L.PexmanP. M.OlineckK. M. (2004). How sarcastic are you? Individual differences and verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 244–271.
25.
KaakinenJ. K.OlkoniemiH.KinnariT.HyönäJ. (2014). Processing of written irony: An eye movement study. Discourse Processes, 51, 287–311.
26.
KemperS.CrowA.KemtesK. (2004). Eye fixation patterns of high and low-span young and older adults: Down the garden path and back again. Psychology and Aging, 19, 157–170.
27.
KemperS.LiuC. J. (2007). Eye movements of young and older adults during reading. Psychology and Aging, 22, 84–93.
28.
KemperS.McDowdJ. (2006). Eye movements of young and older adults while reading with distraction. Psychology and Aging, 21, 32–39.
29.
KerberK. A.IshiyamaG. P.BalohR. W. (2006). A longitudinal study of oculomotor function in normal older people. Neurobiology of Aging, 27, 1346–1353.
30.
KieslerS.SiegelJ.McGuireT. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.
31.
KlieglR.GrabnerE.RolfsM.EngbertR. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 262–284.
32.
KreuzR. J.GlucksbergS. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374–386.
33.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26.
34.
LiuR.PatelB. N.KwonM. (2017). Age-related changes in crowding and reading speed. Scientific Reports, 7, 1–10.
35.
López-SantamaríaL. M.Almanza-OjedaD. L.GomezJ. C.Ibarra-ManzanoM. A. (2019, March). Age and gender identification in unbalanced social media [Paper presentation]. 29th International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Computers, Puebla, Mexico.
36.
McGowanV. A.WhiteS. J.JordanT. R.PatersonK. B. (2014). Aging and the use of interword spaces during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 740–747.
37.
McGowanV. A.WhiteS. J.PatersonK. B. (2015). The effects of interword spacing on the eye movements of young and older readers. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 609–621.
38.
MitchellD.ShenX.GreenM.HodgsonT. (2008). Accounting for regressive eye-movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the selective reanalysis hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 266–293.
39.
MurmanD. L. (2015). The impact of age on cognition. Seminars in Hearing, 36, 111–121.
40.
NewsomeM. R.GlucksbergS. (2002). Older adults filter irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Experimental Aging Research, 28, 253–267.
41.
OleszkiewiczA.KarwowskiM.PisanskiK.SorokowskiP.SobradoB.SorokowskaA. (2017). Who uses emoticons? Data from 86,702 Facebook users. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 289–295.
42.
OlkoniemiH.RantaH.KaakinenJ. K. (2016). Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 433–450.
43.
OwsleyC. (2011). Aging and vision. Vision Research, 51, 1610–1622.
44.
OwsleyC.SekulerR.SiemsenD. (1983). Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood. Vision Research, 23, 689–699.
45.
PatersonK. B.McGowanV. A.JordanT. R. (2013). Filtered text reveals adult age differences in reading: Evidence from eye movements. Psychology and Aging, 28, 352–264.
46.
PelliD. G.RobsonJ. G.WilkinsA. J. (1988). The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clinical Vision Sciences, 2, 187–199.
47.
PexmanP. M. (2008). It’s fascinating research: The cognition of verbal irony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 286–290.
48.
PhillipsL. H.AllenR.BullR.HeringA.KliegelM.ChannonS. (2015). Older adults have difficulty in decoding sarcasm. Developmental Psychology, 51, 1840–1852.
49.
PickeringB.ThompsonD.FilikR. (2018). Examining the emotional impact of sarcasm using a virtual environment. Metaphor and Symbol, 33, 185–197.
50.
PradaM.RodriguesD. L.GarridoM. V.LopesD.CavalheiroB.GasperR. (2018). Motives, frequency and attitudes toward emoji and emoticon use. Telematics and Informatics, 35(7), 1925–1934.
51.
RadnerW.DiendorferG. (2014). English sentence optotypes for measuring reading acuity and speed: The English version of the Radner reading charts. Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 252, 1297–1303.
52.
RaynerK. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
53.
RaynerK.ReichleE. D.StroudM. J.WilliamsC. C.PollatsekA. (2006). The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers. Psychology and Aging, 21, 448–465.
54.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
55.
RezabekL.CochenourJ. (1998). Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: Supplementing text with emoticons. Journal of Visual Literacy, 18, 201–215.
56.
SchefrinB. E.TregearS. J.HarveyL. O.Jr.WernerJ. S. (1999). Senescent changes in scotopic contrast sensitivity. Vision Research, 39, 3728–3736.
SkalickyS.CrossleyS. A. (2019). Examining the online processing of satirical newspaper headlines. Discourse Processes, 56, 61–67.
59.
SkovholtK.GrønningA.KankaanrantaA. (2014). The communicative functions of emoticons in workplace emails::-). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 780–797.
60.
SpinaS. (2019). Role of emoticons as structural markers in Twitter interactions. Discourse Processes, 56, 345–362.
61.
ThompsonD.FilikR. (2016). Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 105–120.
62.
ȚurcanA.FilikR. (2016). An eye-tracking investigation of written sarcasm comprehension: The roles of familiarity and context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1867–1893.
63.
ȚurcanA.FilikR. (2017). Investigating sarcasm comprehension using eye-tracking during reading: What are the roles of literality, familiarity, and echoic mention? In AthanasiadouA.ColstonH. (Eds.), FTL series: Irony in language use and communication (pp. 255–276). John Benjamins.
64.
UekermannJ.ThomaP.DaumI. (2008). Proverb interpretation changes in aging. Brain and Cognition, 67, 51–57.
65.
VasishthS.von der MalsburgT.EngelmannF. (2013). What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 125–134.
66.
WaltherJ. B.D’AddarioK. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 324–347.
67.
WeissmanB.TannerD. (2018). A strong wink between verbal and emoji-based irony: How the brain processes ironic emojis during language comprehension. PLOS ONE, 13, Article e0201727.
68.
WhalenJ. M.PexmanP. M.GillA. J. (2009). “Should be fun—Not!”: Incidence and marking of nonliteral language in e-mail. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28, 263–280.
69.
WhalenJ. M.PexmanP. M.GillA. J.NowsonS. (2012). Verbal irony use in personal blogs. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32, 560–569.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
