Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

To identify the most effective type of emojis for inducing empathy, the nonverbal expression factors of emojis that generate empathy differences were categorized as body language types (the presence of movement and contextual information), emotion type (joy and sadness), and degree of bodily expression (upper body and whole body). After dividing the data into joyful and sad emotion groups, differences in empathy according to the body language types and degree of bodily expression of emojis were confirmed. As a result, in the sad emotions group, empathy was higher in the movement type and the type combining movement and contextual information than the static body language type and the contextual information type without movement. However, the difference in empathy according to the degree of body expression and the interaction effect between body language types and degree of body expression were not significant. On the other hand, in the joyful emotions group, neither the main effect nor the interaction effect was significant. These results indicate that the effective emoji types for inducing empathy are the upper body of the movement type and the upper body combined with movement and contextual information. These types are also considered to work more effectively when applied to emotions with low mirroring and emotion recognition rates, such as sad emotion.

Keywords

emojis empathy movement contextual information emotion type bodily expression

Real-time exchange of emojis or ideogramic images is an increasingly common feature of mobile messengers as a way to quickly and succinctly express emotions. Hence, there is a market for a more effective and economic emoji design. Specifically, there is a need to determine the type of emojis that most effectively inspire empathy by examining differences in empathy according to nonverbal expression elements of emojis.

Currently, in computer-mediated communication, emojis maximize the effects of communication and strengthen human relationships because they are used to express inner states and reactions. Quintly (2017) reported that emoji usage in a post on Instagram increased interaction with that post by 47.7% compared to when they were not used. Due to this interactive function of emojis, people use them in various types of media. In South Korea, where information and communication technologies were developed, emojis are commonly used in mobile messengers where two-way interactions occur in real-time. According to the 2017 Survey on the Internet Usage Summary Report in South Korea, 94.7% of the respondents used messenger services on their mobile devices, and 99.4% used KakaoTalk instant messenger service. In addition, as of 2019, the number of users who chatted using emojis on KakaoTalk reached 29 million per month, and an estimated 2.3 billion messages containing emojis are sent per month (http://www.inews24.com/view/1243656).

Since the launch of KakaoTalk in 2011, >7,500 humanoid emojis have been developed (http://www.inews24.com/view/1243656). These emojis are primarily categorized according to the emotions they express and are further categorized according to the presence of movements in facial expression, gesture, posture, contextual information¹ (graphical information related to the sender’s emotional, physical, and spatiotemporal state, i.e., background) about emotional states and whether the character’s face, upper body, or whole body is depicted. Among these elements, movement and contextual information can specifically affect empathy toward the sender.

Emojis and Mirroring

Previous studies have reported that text-type emoticons and graphic emojis are processed similarly to the in-person perception of facial expressions (Gantiva et al., 2019) and that emotional emoji assessment is an automatic process through potentiality (Comesaña et al., 2013). Furthermore, O’Neil (2013) reported that participants viewing text-type emoticons exhibit face imitation mirroring. This mirroring process is reflexive and involves decoding contextual and interpersonal signals that form the basis of understanding another person’s emotions (Fogassi et al., 2005). Additionally, mirroring encompasses a critical empathy mechanism whereby observing others’ behaviors is associated with a motor activity that enables behavioral representation in the brain (Rymarczyk et al., 2016). In this context, Walter’s (2012) work on the theory of mind and empathy shows that empathy can be developed through simulation processes that are based on mirroring and mentalization, whereby implicit signals and information about others’ emotional expressions can activate the observer’s neural network. Consequently, emoji information processing may be considered as a simulation process of facial expressions and body language. Therefore, in this simulation process, movement and contextual information, which are contagious signals that contain semantic information, are key factors to consider when designing emojis (Jeon, 2020).

Movement and Contextual Information

According to previous studies, movement is a key element for reinforcing mirroring. For example, many studies have reported prompter and higher facial muscle activation by the mirror neuron system when observing corresponding dynamic, rather than static, facial expressions (Rymarczyk et al., 2016; Sato et al., 2008; Sato & Yoshikawa, 2007; Weyers et al., 2006). These motor responses are simulations of human motor behavior that occur independently of emotional meaning (Borgomaneri et al., 2012). In particular, the embodied simulation theory proposes that an observer can understand another person’s emotional state by embodying their emotional expression (Gallese & Sinigaglia, 2011). In practice, the mirroring of emotional expressions has been associated with the ability to experience another’s emotions (Dimberg & Thunberg, 2012) and trigger emotional contagion, which underlies emotional empathy (Sonnby-Borgström, 2002).

Another study reported a causal relationship between facial representation and emotional expression processing (Niedenthal et al., 2001). Furthermore, since body movements are associated with emotional arousal (the degree of activation), they can facilitate emotion recognition and intensity judgments (Pollick et al., 2001; Wallbott, 1998). This could be because the physical movements caused by emotions express the characteristics of emotions through speed, openness, smoothness (Boone & Cunningham, 2001; Lee & Nam, 2007), and direction (Krumhuber et al., 2013). For this reason, it has been suggested that the body’s motion signals may be sufficient to recognize basic emotions (Atkinson et al., 2004; Melzer et al., 2019). Therefore, the movement of emojis could positively affect empathizing with another person’s emotions by activating the mirror neuron system, thus allowing the observer to experience emotions similar to those of the sender and increasing emotion recognition.

Conversely, since contextual information of emojis corresponds to knowledge and information, it is an element that must be interpreted by accessing long-term memory. This means contextual information can interfere with the unconscious and automatic mirroring response. Specifically, emoji attributes such as faces are automatically processed; indeed, previous studies have shown that when facial expressions are iconized (diagrammed), the differential perception of emotional expressions increases (Kendall et al., 2016). As such, since facial information processing is affected by the availability of recognition (MacNamara et al., 2011), too much information regarding behavioral patterns can overload cognitive processing (Millar & Millar, 1995). Therefore, the contextual information of emojis could be expected to negatively affect mirroring and automatic emoji processing.

However, empathy is not a simple somatic response but an emotional response that relies on cognition. Goldman (2008, 2006) explained that low-level mirroring automatically generated by facial expressions can be expanded to high-level simulations by knowledge and information. During this high-level simulation processing, the contextualization of emotion mirroring can lead to richer emotional knowledge (De Vignemont, 2009). Therefore, the contextual information of emojis is highly likely to promote empathy by expanding low-level mirroring to high-level simulations. Specifically, contextual information that provides a rich story through symbolic graphics in this simulation process could positively affect empathy by inducing assumptions about the perspective of others and promoting personification to simulate other people’s emotions (Fini et al., 2015).

In addition, contextual information can help increase the rate of emotion recognition (Theurel et al., 2016) because it helps to clarify signals (Aviezer et al., 2008) by reducing confusion between emotion types that have a strong physical similarity. Therefore, when this kind of contextual information is combined with the movements that underlie emotion recognition, there may be a more positive effect on empathy as emotion recognition increases and a richer narrative is generated.

Emotion Type and the Degree of Bodily Expression

Previous studies have shown that mirroring is influenced by emotion types that are characterized by emotional arousal and valence. In this regard, there have been reports that the level of arousal, especially for pleasant emotions (happiness, pleasure), affects facial imitation (Fujimura et al., 2010; Greenwald et al., 1989; Witvliet & Vrana, 1995). In other words, as the intensity (arousal) of the emotion with a pleasant valence increased, activity in the zygomatic facial muscles (which is typical in happy facial expressions) increased. Thus, mirroring is thought to be sensitive to emotional arousal as well as movement since these are governed by somatic mirror neurons. However, these studies found no correlation between corrugator facial muscle activity (typical in angry facial expressions) and arousal level for unpleasant expressions. This shows that mirroring may be affected by valence as well as emotional arousal.

Indeed, prior studies have reported that despite the automaticity of emotional imitation, it also reflects the valence of the emotion (Eisenbarth et al., 2011; Neumann et al., 2005) and can be controlled by its valence (Seibt et al., 2015). For example, Leighton et al. (2010) found that the auto-mimicking effect occurs more in response to pro-social words than anti-social words. Additionally, in everyday life, people imitate smiles more than they do frowns (Hinsz & Tomhave, 1991). This is probably not because a smile confers higher arousal than a frown but because it has a pleasant valence and is associated with pro-social emotions. Therefore, considering these previous studies, we can propose that emotions, such as joy, with high arousal and a pleasant valence, can reinforce empathy by generating a greater degree of mirroring than emotions, such as sadness, with low arousal, and an unpleasant valence.

In addition, emotion recognition can be influenced by emotion types, especially emotional arousal (the activation dimension). For example, joy, which confers higher emotional arousal than sadness, is also easier to recognize as a result of its greater openness and intensity of physical movements (Lee & Nam, 2007). Indeed, it has been shown that joyful emotions result in a higher rate of emotion recognition than sad emotions (Alves et al., 2009; Garcia & Tully, 2020).

Furthermore, the degree of bodily expression, which determines the range of expression of emotional information, can influence the mirroring and recognition of emotions. Specifically, since bodily expression can embody emotions effectively (Flack et al., 1999) due to physical arousal, there may be a stronger mirroring as the degree of bodily expression associated with facial expressions increases. In addition, while we primarily recognize emotions through facial expressions, physical postures, and gestures, in which emotions are also expressed, they also act as clues to recognize emotions. Thus, bodily expression can play a positive role in emotion recognition (Aviezer et al., 2012; Coulson, 2004; Ekman & Friesen, 1967, 1969); in particular, body expressions can provide more information than faces when distinguishing between fear and anger, or between fear and happiness (Meeren et al., 2005; Van den Stock et al., 2007). For this reason, the combination of facial expressions, gestures, and postures makes it easier and faster to recognize emotions than when relying on only one body expression (Flack et al., 1999; Gunes & Piccardi, 2007). Moreover, bodily expression is positively associated with the richness of emotional knowledge of the sender and, therefore, enhances the sense of reality and narrative. Thus the whole body, including the face, may have a more positive effect on empathy than the upper body plus the face, and the face alone.

As we have seen so far, empathy can be affected by differences in not only the presence of movement and contextual information in emojis but also the emotion type and the degree of bodily expression. However, to design emojis that increase empathy, we need to specifically identify the types of emojis that effectively induce empathy. To accomplish this, we determined that it was necessary to divide the emojis into positive (joy) and negative emotions (sadness) groups and evaluate differences in empathy according to the presence of movement and contextual information and the degree of body expression in each group.

In other words, since emojis provide visual information representing the sender’s emotions, the study must be designed to evaluate each emotion type. Additionally, when the sender applies emojis, the first selection criterion is the emotion type that represents their emotions. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the emoji types that effectively induce empathy by dividing them according to emotion type. Additionally, when the sender selects an emoji from the same emotion type as their own emotion, the selected emoji includes the presence of movement and contextual information as well as the degree of body expression. However, considering that degree of bodily expression is a factor that determines the range of expression of movement and contextual information and that the emotional processing of emojis is automatic (Comesaña et al., 2013), the complexity of information due to the presence of movement and contextual information according to the degree of body expression can affect the information processing of emojis. Thus, emojis depicting only the upper body may be more effective in inducing empathy than those depicting the whole body, even though whole-body information more effectively induces empathy in real-world situations. Previous reports have found that emotionally relevant information can be detected from the movement of the upper body (dynamic qualities of the gesture; Glowinski et al., 2011), and the information contained in upper body motion in natural scenarios is enough for people to recognize emotion (Volkova et al., 2014). Therefore, to determine the type of emoji that is most effective for inducing empathy, this study proposed the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Will empathy differences occur according to body language types (the presence of movement and contextual information) and degree of bodily expression (upper body and whole body) of emojis in both the joyful and sad emotions groups?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): Will there be an interaction effect between body language types (the presence of movement and contextual information) and degree of bodily expression (upper body and whole body) of emojis in the joyful and sad emotions groups?

Study Instruments and Methods

Instruments

In this study, the expression elements of emojis that generate empathy differences in mobile messenger services chosen were movement and contextual information, emotion type, and the degree of bodily expression; these are defined as “non-verbal expression elements of emojis.” This operational definition was based on the fact that emojis that act as a proxy for non-verbal expressions (Walther, 2006) in mobile messages are categorized into the presence of movement and contextual information (Yang et al., 2017), emotional type (Chang, 2015), and the degree of bodily expression (Jeon, 2019). Among these, the key expressive elements of emojis for generating empathy were set as movement and contextual information for the body language of emojis. To examine the differences in empathy based on the presence of movement and contextual information of emojis, we set four “body language types” [Movement (x) + contextual information (x) = static body language type (Type A); Movement (x) + contextual information (o) = contextual information type (Type B); Movement (o) + contextual information (x) = movement type (Type C); Movement (o) + contextual information (o) = movement + contextual information type (Type D)] based on static body language (Table 1). This operational definition was based on the description of body language as nonverbal messages conveyed by physical movements (Knapp, 1978), and findings that emotional recognition based on body language is influenced by contextual variables (Wieser & Brosch, 2012).

Table 1.

Examples of Stimuli.

Type A: Static body language type				Type B: Contextual information type
[movement (x) + contextual information (x)]				[movement (x) + contextual information (o)]
Subdivision		Emotion type		Subdivision		Emotion type
Subdivision		Joy	Sadness	Subdivision		Joy	Sadness
Degree of bodily expression	Upper body			Degree of bodily expression	Upper body
	Whole body			Degree of bodily expression	Whole body

Note. Type C = Same emojis as Type A, but with movement; Type D = Same emojis as Type B, but with movement.

In addition, we compared emotion type (joyful and sad emotions) and the degree of bodily expression (upper body and whole body). Joy and sadness are the most distinct basic human emotions (Russell, 1983). Furthermore, according to the circumplex model of Russell (1980) and the emotion category system of Wallbott (1998), joy is defined as an emotion with a pleasant valence and high arousal, whereas sadness has an unpleasant valence and low arousal. The categorization of the degree of body expression of emojis as the upper body or whole body, including facial expressions, was based on the classification of body language into physical units (gaze/stare, facial expression, gesture, and posture) by Birdwhistell (1970), and the classification of body language into symbolic meaning (head, torso, and legs) by Delsarte (Shawn, 1963). Also, since the mobile message has a small chat window, we considered the possibility that movement and contextual information of emojis are expressed more strongly when facial expressions and bodily expressions are combined than when facial expressions alone are presented.

Measurement and Reliability of Variables

In this study, the term “empathy” refers to the ability to understand another person’s emotional state or experience, as well as the ability to share and respond to emotional expression (Blair, 2005). Therefore, we measured empathy using “emotional empathy” items taken from the empathy scale of Escalas and Stern (2003), Davis (1980), and Mehrabian and Epstein (1972). The scale used in the current study was built by extracting the two most suitable items from each of the three aforementioned scales: “When I look at this emoji, I experience the same emotion that the emoji expresses” and “When I look at this emoji, the emotion of the emoji (sender) feels the same as my own emotion.” Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much). The Cronbach’s α was .855, which indicates that the reliability of the scale was quite high.

Study Participants and the Survey Method

It has been reported that 99.4% of South Koreans use KakaoTalk and that individuals in their twenties have the highest usage of mobile messenger services (Ministry of Science and ICT & Korea Internet and Security Agency, 2017). Therefore, we selected study participants from among college students across the country who used emojis on KakaoTalk. Stimuli were limited to “MUZI & CON” emojis (emojis with a human face and body shape, not text-type emoticons), which are distributed for free and express both joyful and sad emotions in the “Kakao Friends” emojis, which are the most popular KakaoTalk emojis (Kim, 2015). Stimuli selected for this study were presented in the KakaoTalk chat window to allow participants to imagine that the emojis were being received from their friends on the messenger app.

In addition, emojis are also used in place of text messages but are usually used with sentences to express or supplement the sender’s emotional state and situation (Ai et al., 2017; Donato & Paggio, 2017). Therefore, in this study, each emoji was inserted into the sentence “I got a confession from him/her today” in the joyful emotions group and in the sentence “I have broken up with him/her today” in the sad emotions group. However, in this study, emojis were placed to sufficiently reflect and measure the recipient’s response to emojis as stimuli as follows. First, rather than inserting emojis into sentences, they were separated from the sentences and arranged in an emphasized form (size) in parallel. Second, even in a parallel arrangement, emojis were placed in front of the sentences to induce recipients to recognize the emojis before the sentences (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Example of the questionnaire design.

The survey was conducted on personal computers and mobile devices. All participants provided written consent for the use of their data obtained from the survey for this study. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire regarding their feelings and thoughts on the emojis presented in the KakaoTalk chat window. All stimuli and questions used in the survey were randomized to avoid a learning effect. Furthermore, we established a system to prevent unreliable answers to the survey. First, we added four independent questions to the survey to screen for respondents who randomly selected answers that instructed participants to enter a specific number. Second, to encourage thorough reading and answering of each question, the questions were sequentially presented after each stimulus had been displayed, with the next question being shown after the previous one had been answered. Third, the next stimulus was presented after a 30-second interval once the previous question had been answered.

Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Data were collected between February 28th and March 5th, 2018. Participants were 615 university students living in Korea who had used KakaoTalk. Participants were selected after completing a screening questionnaire (that collected data on sex, age, school year, area of residence, whether they had used KakaoTalk, whether they had used emojis, and daily frequency of emoji usage). Data obtained from a final total of 514 participants were analyzed after excluding six individuals who had not used emojis from the 520 participants who successfully completed the four additional questions added to prevent unfaithful responses.

The data were divided into joyful or sad emotion groups, and the difference in empathy according to body language types (the presence of movement and contextual information) and degree of bodily expression (upper body and whole body) was performed through two-way ANOVA. In addition, as an alternative, given the non-normal distribution, the analysis was performed using the Natural Logarithm (LN) for empathy, which is the main variable. For data analysis and processing, the SPSS 25ver program (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

There was a higher proportion of female than male participants in this study. Moreover, most participants were senior students, followed by sophomores, juniors, and freshman students. Regarding the daily frequency of emoji use, the most common frequency was 1 to 4 times, followed by >15, 5 to 9, 10 to 14, and <1 (Table 2).

Table 2.

General Characteristics of the Study Participants.

Variables	Classification	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Sex	Male	186	36.38
Sex	Female	328	63.62
School year	Freshman	32	6.23
	Sophomore	149	28.99
	Junior	139	27.04
	Senior	194	37.74
Daily frequency of using emojis	Less than once	55	10.70
	1–4 times	147	28.60
	5–9 times	117	22.81
	10–14 times	63	12.26
	15 times or more	132	25.68
Total	Total	514	100.0

RQ1 and RQ2

Table 3 shows the results of the two-way ANOVA conducted to confirm the difference in empathy according to body language types (the presence of movement and contextual information) and degree of bodily expression (upper body and whole body) of emojis in the joyful and sad emotions groups. The results indicate that neither the main effect nor the interaction effect was significant in the joyful emotions group. Alternatively, in the sad emotions group, there was a significant main effect of body language type on the difference in empathy (F = 7.356, p < .001). However, neither the difference in empathy according to the degree of body expression nor the interaction effect between body language types and degree of body expression were significant in the sad emotions group.

Table 3.

Two-Way ANOVA Analysis of Empathy According to Body Language Types and Degree of Bodily Expression of Emojis in the Joyful and Sad Emotions Groups.

Groups	Variables	Sum of squares	Degrees of freedom	Mean square	F	p-Value
Joyful emotions	Body language types	0.337	3	0.112	1.047	.371
	Degree of bodily expression	0.000	1	0.000	0.000	1.000
	Body language types × degree of bodily expression	0.076	3	0.025	0.234	.872
	Error	384.201	3,576	0.107
Sad emotions	Body language types	2.554	3	0.851	7.356***	.000
	Degree of bodily expression	0.129	1	0.129	1.118	0.290
	Body language types × degree of bodily expression	0.067	3	0.022	0.192	.902
	Error	413.802	3,576	0.116

***

p < .001.

Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics and post-test results of analyses of the main effects in the joyful and sad emotions groups. In the descriptive statistics, empathy was shown as A, B < C < D in the joyful emotions group, and B < A < C < D in the sad emotions group (see Figure 2). In addition, empathy was the same for the upper body and whole body in the joyful emotions group and was higher for the whole body than in the upper body in the sad emotions group. However, the post-test indicated that the empathy score was higher in Type C and type D than in Type A and Type B only in the sad emotions group (A, B < C, and D). Also, it indicated no empathy difference between the upper body and the whole body in both emotional groups.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics and Post-Test of Empathy According to Body Language Types and Degree of Bodily Expression of Emojis.

Classification		Joyful emotions group			Sad emotions group
Variables	Types	M	SE	Bonferroni	M	SE	Bonferroni
Body language types	Type A	1.126	0.011	—	1.065	0.011	A,B < C,D
	Type B	1.126	0.011		1.057	0.011
	Type C	1.128	0.011		1.109	0.011
	Type D	1.149	0.011		1.119	0.011
Degree of bodily expression	Upper body (U)	1.132	0.008	—	1.081	0.008	—
Degree of bodily expression	Whole body (W)	1.132	0.008	—	1.093	0.008	—

Note. Type A (static body language type): Movement (x) + contextual information (x); Type B (contextual information type): Movement (x) + contextual information (o); Type C (movement type): Movement (o) + contextual information (x); Type D (movement + contextual information type): Movement (o) + contextual information (o).

Figure 2.

Empathy according to body language types in joyful and sad emotions group.

Tables 5 and 6 provide the descriptive statistics for analyses of the difference in empathy according to body language types (the presence of movement and contextual information) by the degree of bodily expression (upper body and whole body) in joyful and sad emotions groups. In the joyful emotions group, empathy was shown as A < C < B < D in the upper body and B < C < A < D in the whole body. Alternatively, in the sad emotions group, empathy was shown as B < A < C < D in both the upper body and whole body. In other words, it is difficult to trust the statistical results of detailed differences because the interaction effect is not significant, but when comparing average values, empathy showed the highest trend in type (D), combining movement and contextual information regardless of the emotional type and the degree of bodily expression. In addition, empathy showed the lowest tendency in the contextual information type without movement except for the upper body in the joyful emotions group (Figures 3 and 4).

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics of Empathy According to Body Language Types by the Degree of Bodily Expression of Emojis in the Joyful Emotions Group.

Degree of bodily expression	Body language types	Type A	Type B	Type C	Type D
Degree of bodily expression	Body language types	Movement (x) + contextual information (x)	Movement (x) + contextual information (o)	Movement (o) + contextual information (x)	Movement (o) + contextual information (o)
Upper body	M	1.120	1.133	1.129	1.148
Upper body	SE	0.015	0.015	0.015	0.015
Whole body	M	1.132	1.119	1.128	1.150
Whole body	SE	0.015	0.015	0.015	0.015

Table 6.

Descriptive Statistics of Empathy According to Body Language Types by the Degree of Bodily Expression of Emojis in the Sad Emotions Group.

Degree of bodily expression	Body language types	Type A	Type B	Type C	Type D
Degree of bodily expression	Body language types	Movement (x) + contextual information (x)	Movement (x) + contextual information (o)	Movement (o) + contextual information (x)	Movement (o) + contextual information (o)
Upper body	M	1.059	1.056	1.104	1.106
Upper body	SE	0.016	0.016	0.016	0.016
Whole body	M	1.070	1.058	1.113	1.131
Whole body	SE	0.016	0.016	0.016	0.016

Figure 3.

Empathy according to body language types by the degree of bodily expression of emojis in the joyful emotions group.

Figure 4.

Empathy according to body language types by the degree of bodily expression of emojis in sad emotions group.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this study, movement and contextual information were set as key expression factors for the generation of empathy based on previous neuroscience research to identify the type of emojis effective for inducing empathy. The emojis were grouped according to joyful emotions and sad emotions, and the difference in empathy according to body language types (the presence of movement and contextual information) and degree of bodily expression (upper body and whole body) was confirmed. As a result, results demonstrated that the empathy difference according to body language types was significant in the sad emotions group. In particular, empathy was higher in the movement type and the type combining movement and contextual information than in the static body language type and the contextual information type without movement.

First, these results confirm that when not only movement of emoji but also movement and contextual information are combined, empathy is reinforced. This could be because, basically, movement of emojis promotes emotional recognition (Pollick et al., 2001) as well as mirroring, which has a causal relationship with emotional expression processing (Niedenthal et al., 2001). In addition, this is because it has a positive effect on empathizing with another person’s emotions by simulating the expression of emotions through enhanced mirroring and recognition of emotions, thereby generating emotional contagion. Furthermore, it is determined that the combination of movement and contextual information in this empathy generation process generates richer emotional knowledge and narratives and has a more positive effect on empathy by increasing emotion recognition.

Second, the fact that the empathy difference according to body language types of emojis was significant in the sad emotions group suggests that the influence of emojis’ movement and contextual information is greater on sad emotions than on joyful emotions. In other words, according to previous studies, the arousal of emotions can be interpreted as the intensity of emotion (Lang et al., 1998). Thus, emotion recognition is easier for joyful emotions, which confer high emotional arousal, than for sad emotions, which have a low level of arousal (Alves et al., 2009; Garcia & Tully, 2020). In addition, emotions with a pleasant valence confer higher emotional arousal results in a greater mirroring of emotions (Fujimura et al., 2010; Greenwald et al., 1989; Witvliet & Vrana, 1995). Based on these reports, joyful emotions with high emotional activation and pleasant valence (Russell, 1980; Wallbott, 1998) result in a high level of emotion recognition and mirroring. Therefore, the presence of movement and contextual information of emojis may have a relatively smaller contribution to the levels of empathy induced in the case of joyful emotions. However, since sad emotions with a low emotional activation and unpleasant valence (Russell, 1980; Wallbott, 1998) have the opposite effect, the presence of movement and contextual information of emojis affects mirroring and emotion recognition in response to sad emotions, which results in the element playing a key role in generating discriminatory differences in empathy. That is, movements can be considered to reinforce mirroring and facilitate emotion recognition. In addition, according to previous studies (in adults), when contextual information is added, the increased rate of emotion recognition is higher for sad emotions (82% – 96%) than for happy emotions (94% – 99%; Theurel et al., 2016). This could be because adding contextual information to sad emotions, for which emotion recognition is not easy due to a low level of arousal, clarifies the emotional signal (Aviezer et al., 2008); this could also explain the positive impact on the increase in the rate of emotion recognition (Theurel et al., 2016). Based on these previous studies, we can conclude that the presence of movement and contextual information of emojis can increase the lowered mirroring and emotion recognition of sad emotions due to their unpleasant valence and low level of arousal. Also, for this reason, it is judged that the empathy difference according to body language types (the presence of movement and contextual information) was significant in the sad emotions group rather than the joyful emotions group in this study.

However, in this study, the difference in empathy according to the degree of body expression (upper body, whole body) was not significant in the joyful and sad emotions groups. This suggests that the upper body of the emoji has the same effect as the whole body rather than that the degree of body expression of emojis does not affect empathy. In other words, in general, whole body emojis can generate a higher level of empathy than upper body emojis because they have a larger cumulative effect of emotion in terms of mirroring of emotions or emotion recognition (Flack et al., 1999); in fact, in this study, empathy showed a higher average value in the whole body than in the upper half in the sad emotions group. However, previous studies have reported that emotion recognition is possible even with movement information in upper body gestures (Glowinski et al., 2011) and that upper body movement can be sufficiently effective for emotion recognition in situations such as natural scenarios (Volkova et al., 2014). These contents show that the upper body alone can be sufficient for emotional recognition when movement and contextual information are combined as an expression element of emoji. Also, for this reason, it is judged that the difference in empathy between the upper body and the whole body was not statistically significant in this study. However, in this study, there was no interaction effect between body language types and degree of body expression in the joyful and sad emotions groups. This suggests that even if complexity occurs in the cognitive process as movement and contextual information are combined, empathy induced by an emoji is not a process affected by cognitive availability to such an extent that it appears higher in the upper body than in the whole body.

Finally, the results of this study are summarized as follows. First, this study confirmed that emotional type and the presence of movement and contextual information are nonverbal expression elements of emojis that affect the level of induced empathy. Thus, these elements need to be considered when designing and applying emojis to increase empathy. Second, our results demonstrate that empathy is strengthened in the movement type (Type C) and in the type combining movement and contextual information (Type D) in the sad emotions group. These emojis types (Types C and D) are considered to work more effectively when applied to emotion types with low mirroring and emotion recognition rates, such as sad emotions. However, there was a lack of any significant differences in levels of empathy according to body expression (the upper body and whole body). This finding, given the consideration that emojis are sent and received in real-time, indicates that the most effective emoji type for inducing empathy is the upper body type with movement and the upper body type with the combined movement and contextual information.

Implications and Limitations

In this study, by analyzing the empathy difference according to the nonverbal expression factors of emojis, the factors causing the difference and the effective types of empathy were identified. The present results are expected to serve as a practical guide for emoji design and relationship marketing. We identified the specific elements that affect the empathy induced by emojis, as well as the emoji types that are most effective for inducing empathy. In addition, the present results confirmed that the difference in empathy according to the degree of bodily expression in emojis was not significant (the upper body of emojis can replace the whole body), which could help designers save time and effort in designing emojis.

However, in this study, there was no significant difference in empathy between the movement type and the combined movement and contextual information type, so the sender faces the problem of having to choose between the two types. If you consider the economic aspect, you can select the type of movement, but if you consider the higher effect, you can select the type that combines the movement and contextual information that recorded the highest average value. However, since the current results were obtained without distinguishing the recipient groups, a more effective type may exist depending on the recipient group. That is, depending on the characteristics of the recipient (e.g., mirroring and emotion recognition ability), there may be a group that can sufficiently induce empathy with only movement and a group that the combined movement and contextual information type is more effective. This shows that a follow-up study that can supplement the results of this study is needed in that it can bring higher communication and marketing effects when emojis suitable for the characteristics of the recipient are applied.

Furthermore, in the results of the descriptive statistical analysis of this study, empathy showed a tendency to decrease by contextual information without movement except for the upper body in the joyful emotions group. This raises the suspicion that empathy generated through emojis may not be a process of mentalization or high-level simulation, in which contextual information plays a positive role as an additional source of knowledge and information, regardless of the presence of movement. That is, they may be a low-level process (low-level simulation based on mirroring; O’Neil, 2013) to the extent that it is negatively affected by contextual information without movement, although not to the extent that the interaction effect between body language types and degree of body expression occurs. However, since this content was not confirmed in this study, we propose a study to identify the cognitive process of emoji and the characteristics of the empathy generating process based on the mechanism for the generation of empathy via emojis.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hye-Jin Jeon

Notes

References

Liu

Wang

Huang

Mei

(2017). Untangling emoji popularity through semantic embeddings. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 11(1), 2–11.

Alves

N. T.

Aznar-Casanova

J. A.

Fukusima

S. S.

(2009). Patterns of brain asymmetry in the perception of positive and negative facial expressions. Laterality, 14(3),256–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500802362927

Atkinson

A. P.

Dittrich

W. H.

Gemmell

A. J.

Young

A. W.

(2004). Emotion perception from dynamic and static body expressions in point-light and full-light displays. Perception, 33(6),717–746. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5096

Aviezer

Hassin

R. R.

Bentin

Trope

(2008). Putting facial expressions back in context. In Ambady

Skowronski

J. J.

(Eds.), First impressions (pp. 255–286). Guilford Press.

Aviezer

Trope

Todorov

(2012). Body cues, not facial expressions, discriminate between intense positive and negative emotions. Science, 338(6111),1225–1229. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224313

Birdwhistell

R. L.

(1970). Kinesics and context. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Blair

R. J. R.

(2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Cognition, 14(4),698–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004

Boone

R. T.

Cunningham

J. G.

(2001). Children’s expression of emotional meaning in music through expressive body movement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(1),21–41. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006733123708

Borgomaneri

Gazzola

Avenanti

(2012). Motor mapping of implied actions during perception of emotional body language. Brain Stimulation, 5(2),70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.03.011

10.

Chang

I. J.

(2015). A study on emotion classification and design elements of mobile emoticons-based on characters of LINE, mobile messenger. Design Convergence Study, 14(3), 47–60.

11.

Comesaña

Soares

A. P.

Perea

Piñeiro

A. P.

Fraga

Pinheiro

(2013). ERP correlates of masked affective priming with emoticons. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3),588–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.020

12.

Coulson

(2004). Attributing emotion to static body postures: Recognition accuracy, confusions, and viewpoint dependence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(2),117–139. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JONB.0000023655.25550.be

13.

Davis

M. H.

(1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

14.

De Vignemont

. (2009). Drawing the boundary between low-level and high-level mindreading. Philosophical Studies, 144(3),457–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9354-1

15.

Dey

A. K.

Abowd

G. D.

Salber

(2001). A conceptual framework and a toolkit for supporting the rapid prototyping of context-aware applications. Human–Computer Interaction, 16(2–4),97–166. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI16234_02

16.

Dimberg

Thunberg

(2012). Empathy, emotional contagion, and rapid facial reactions to angry and happy facial expressions. PsyCh Journal, 1(2),118–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.4

17.

Donato

Paggio

(2017). Investigating redundancy in emoji use: Study on a Twitter based corpus. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 118–126). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-5216

18.

Eisenbarth

Gerdes

A. B. M.

Alpers

G. W.

(2011). Motor-incompatibility of facial reactions: The influence of valence and stimulus content on voluntary facial reactions. Journal of Psychophysiology, 25(3),124–130. https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000048

19.

Ekman

Friesen

W. V.

(1967). Head and body cues in the judgment of emotion: A reformulation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24(3),711–724. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1967.24.3.711

20.

Ekman

Friesen

W. V.

(1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and codings. Semiotica, 1(1),49–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49

21.

Escalas

J. E.

Stern

B. B.

(2003). Sympathy and empathy: Emotional responses to advertising dramas. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4),566–578. https://doi.org/10.1086/346251

22.

Fini

Committeri

Müller

B. C.

Deschrijver

Brass

(2015). How watching Pinocchio movies changes our subjective experience of extrapersonal space. PLoS One, 10(3), e0120306. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120306

23.

Flack

W. F.

Jr. Laird

J. D.

Cavallaro

L. A.

(1999). Separate and combined effects of facial expressions and bodily postures on emotional feelings. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2–3),203–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<203::AID-EJSP924>3.0.CO;2-8

24.

Fogassi

Ferrari

P. F.

Gesierich

Rozzi

Chersi

Rizzolatti

(2005). Parietal lobe: From action organization to intention understanding. Science, 308(5722),662–667. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106138

25.

Fujimura

Sato

Suzuki

(2010). Facial expression arousal level modulates facial mimicry. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 76(2),88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.02.008

26.

Gallese

Sinigaglia

(2011). What is so special about embodied simulation? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11),512–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.09.003

27.

Gantiva

Sotaquirá

Araujo

Cuervo

(2019). Cortical processing of human and emoji faces: An ERP analysis. Behaviour and Information Technology, 39(8),935–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1632933

28.

Garcia

S. E.

Tully

E. C.

(2020). Children’s recognition of happy, sad, and angry facial expressions across emotive intensities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 197, 104881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104881

29.

Glowinski

Dael

Camurri

Volpe

Mortillaro

Scherer

(2011). Towards a minimal representation of affective gestures. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 2(2),106–118. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-AFFC.2011.7

30.

Goldman

A. I.

(2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mind reading. Oxford University Press.

31.

Goldman

A. I.

(2008). Mirroring, mind reading, and simulation. In Pineda

(Ed.), Mirror neuron systems: The role of mirroring processes in social cognition. Humana Press.

32.

Greenwald

M. K.

Cook

E. W.

Lang

P. J.

(1989). Affective judgment and psychophysiological response: Dimensional covariation in the evaluation of pictorial stimuli. Journal of Psychophysiology, 3(1), 51–64.

33.

Gunes

Piccardi

(2007). Bi-modal emotion recognition from expressive face and body gestures. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 30(4),1334–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2006.09.007

34.

Hinsz

V. B.

Tomhave

J. A.

(1991). Smile and (half) the world smiles with you, frown and you frown alone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5),586–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175014

35.

Jeon

H.-J.

(2019). Effects of non-verbal expression types of emoticons on empathy and relationship commitment—Focusing on the mediating effects of perspective taking and inner imitation. Hongik University.

36.

Jeon

H.-J.

(2020). The mechanism of empathy and relationship commitment through emojis: Path to perspective taking, inner imitation, emotional empathy, and relationship commitment. SAGE Open, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020969675

37.

Kendall

L. N.

Raffaelli

Kingstone

Todd

R. M.

(2016). Iconic faces are not real faces: Enhanced emotion detection and altered neural processing as faces become more iconic. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0021-8

38.

Kim

S. H.

(2015). A study of character design for emoticon character of the smart-phone messenger: Focus on formative characteristic of the paid emoticon character. Hongik University.

39.

Knapp

M. L.

(1978). Nonverbal communication in human interaction (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

40.

Krumhuber

E. G.

Kappas

Manstead

A. S. R.

(2013). Effects of dynamic aspects of facial expressions:A review. Emotion Review, 5(1),41–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912451349

41.

Lang

P. J.

Bradley

M. M.

Cuthbert

B. N.

(1998). Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: Brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. Biological Psychiatry, 44(12),1248–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(98)00275-3

42.

Lee

J.-H.

Nam

T.-J.

(2007). Physical movement design to enhance emotional value of product—With emphasis on the development of emotion-movement framework and emotion palpus. Archives of Design Research, 20(4), 41–52.

43.

Leighton

Bird

Orsini

Heyes

(2010). Social attitudes modulate automatic imitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6),905–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.001

44.

MacNamara

Ferri

Hajcak

(2011). Working memory load reduces the late positive potential and this effect is attenuated with increasing anxiety. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(3),321–331. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-011-0036-z

45.

Meeren

H. K.

van Heijnsbergen

C. C.

de Gelder

(2005). Rapid perceptual integration of facial expression and emotional body language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(45),16518–16523. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507650102

46.

Mehrabian

Epstein

(1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4),525–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x

47.

Melzer

Shafir

Tsachor

R. P.

(2019). How do we recognize emotion from movement? Specific motor components contribute to the recognition of each emotion. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01389

48.

Millar

(1995). Detection of deception in familiar and unfamiliar persons: The effects of information restriction. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19(2),69–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02173167

49.

Ministry of Science and ICT and Korea Internet and Security Agency. (2017). 2017 survey on the internet usage summary report. Author. http://search.naver.com/search.naver?sm=tab_hty.top&where=nexearch&query=2017+Survey+on+the+Internet+Usage+Summary+Report+%28National+Statistics+No.+120005%29.+&oquery=Chinese+consumers%E2%80%99+attachment+to+Korean+soap+opera+and+sympathy-inducing+factors.&tqi=Ukp8Mdp0J14ssZyumyVssssst8V-171365&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nia.or.kr%2Fcommon%2Fboard%2FDownload.do%3FbcIdx%3D20793%26cbIdx%3D99870%26fileNo%3D2&ucs=bpJ7ZPzAT018

50.

Neumann

Hess

Schulz

Alpers

G. W.

(2005). Automatic behavioural responses to valence: Evidence that facial action is facilitated by evaluative processing. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4),499–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930512331392562

51.

Niedenthal

P. M.

Brauer

Halberstadt

J. B.

Innes-Ker

Å. H.

(2001). When did her smile drop? Facial mimicry and the influences of emotional state on the detection of change in emotional expression. Cognition and Emotion, 15(6),853–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000194

52.

O’Neil

(2013). Mirror, mirror on the screen, what does all this ASCII mean?: A pilot study of spontaneous facial mirroring of emotions. Arbutus Review, 4(1),19–44. https://doi.org/10.18357/tar41201312681

53.

Pollick

F. E.

Paterson

H. M.

Bruderlin

Sanford

A. J.

(2001). Perceiving affect from arm movement. Cognition, 82(2), B51–B61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00147-0

54.

Quintly. (2017). Emojis lead up to 47.7% more interactions on Instagram. https://www.quintly.com/blog/instagram-emoji-study

55.

Russell

J. A.

(1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6),1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714

56.

Russell

J. A.

(1983). Pancultural aspects of the human conceptual organization of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6),1281–1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1281

57.

Rymarczyk

Żurawski

Jankowiak-Siuda

Szatkowska

(2016). Emotional empathy and facial mimicry for static and dynamic facial expressions of fear and disgust. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1853. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01853

58.

Sato

Fujimura

Suzuki

(2008). Enhanced facial EMG activity in response to dynamic facial expressions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 70(1),70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.06.001

59.

Sato

Yoshikawa

(2007). Spontaneous facial mimicry in response to dynamic facial expressions. Cognition, 104(1),1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.001

60.

Seibt

Mühlberger

Likowski

K. U.

Weyers

(2015). Facial mimicry in its social setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1122. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01122

61.

Shawn

(1963). Every little movement: A book about François Delsarte (2nd ed.). Horizons Dance Book Company.

62.

Sonnby-Borgström

(2002). Between ourselves: Automatic mimicry reactions as related to empathic ability and patterns of attachment. Lund University.

63.

Theurel

Witt

Malsert

Lejeune

Fiorentini

Barisnikov

Gentaz

(2016). The integration of visual context information in facial emotion recognition in 5- to 15-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.004

64.

Van den Stock

Righart

de Gelder

. (2007). Body expressions influence recognition of emotions in the face and voice. Emotion, 7(3),487–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.487

65.

Volkova

E. P.

Mohler

B. J.

Dodds

T. J.

Tesch

Bülthoff

H. H.

(2014). Emotion categorization of body expressions in narrative scenarios. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 623. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00623

66.

Wallbott

H. G.

(1998). Bodily expression of emotion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(6),879–896. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<879::AID-EJSP901>3.0.CO;2-W

67.

Walter

(2012). Social cognitive neuroscience of empathy: Concepts, circuits, and genes. Emotion Review, 4(1),9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911421379

68.

Walther

J. B.

(2006). Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, or: (and the net: (‘s with you, :) and you :) alone. In Manusov

Patterson

M. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 461–479). SAGE.

69.

Weyers

Mühlberger

Hefele

Pauli

(2006). Electromyographic responses to static and dynamic avatar emotional facial expressions. Psychophysiology, 43(5),450–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00451.x

70.

Wieser

M. J.

Brosch

(2012). Faces in context: A review and systematization of contextual influences on affective face processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00471

71.

Witvliet

C. V.

Vrana

S. R.

(1995). Psychophysiological responses as indices of affective dimensions. Psychophysiology, 32(5),436–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb02094.x

72.

Yang

H.-I.

Lee

S.-J.

Kim

S.-J.

(2017). A study on emotional communication by emoticon context: Focusing on emoticon used in Kakao talk. Bulletin of Korean Society of Basic Design & Art, 18(3), 237–248.

Differences in Empathy According to Nonverbal Expression Elements of Emojis: Focusing on the Humanoid Emojis of KakaoTalk

Abstract

Keywords

Emojis and Mirroring

Movement and Contextual Information

Emotion Type and the Degree of Bodily Expression

Study Instruments and Methods

Instruments

Measurement and Reliability of Variables

Study Participants and the Survey Method

Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Results

Demographic Characteristics

RQ1 and RQ2

Discussion and Conclusion

Implications and Limitations

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

References