Cultural Influences on Perceptions of Emotions Depicted in Emojis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research suggests that people from different cultures weigh cues in the eyes versus mouth differently while interpreting emotions. In Western cultures, where overt emotional display is the norm, people weigh the mouth region more heavily when interpreting facial emotional expression in comparison with people from Eastern cultures. By contrast, in Eastern cultures, where subtle emotion display is the norm, people weigh the eyes region more heavily in comparison with people from Western cultures. Emojis are frequently used paralinguistic cues that convey emotions. Here, we report the results of an online quasiexperimental study in which emotion cues in the eyes and mouth regions of emojis were manipulated to test for differences in the perception of emotions among Westerners and Easterners (N = 427). Consistent with previous research, relative to one another, Westerners' and Easterners' ratings of the emotional valence (i.e., happiness/sadness) of emojis were influenced more heavily by the mouth and eyes, respectively. Thus, the present study adds to the literature suggesting cultural differences in the use of mouth versus eye cues to interpret emotions and supports the notion that these differences extend to paralinguistic cues such as emojis and, consequently, have implications for digital communication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it