miscommunication – Languaged Life

Do actions really speak louder than words? Exploring Nonverbal Communication at UCLA Through a Lens of Internationality, Identity Formation, and Socialization

Fanny Berger, Alyssa Cole, Helena Hu, Hunter Sarmiento, Makayla Smith

This article focuses on channels of nonverbal communication across different cultures; primarily, the study conducted aims to better understand differences in including, but not limited to, gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, touch, space, and posture across different cultures. A secondary focus was also shifted to understanding how people of different cultures interpret and perceive each other’s body language in a conversational context, and to the extent to which they feel comfortable understanding others’ nonverbal communication styles. The study was conducted in two rounds: preliminary data collection was performed across UCLA students of different cultural backgrounds, with a deeper dive into select respondents from different cultural backgrounds through extensive interviewing. Respondent data reflected that most nonverbal communication is influenced by cultural upbringing and interpreting body language from someone of a different culture proves to be a challenge for most, demonstrating the impact of culture, identity, and community on how one interacts with the world.

Introduction and Background

In America’s melting pot, communication transcends cultures as people of different cultural backgrounds are in constant contact with one another, whether that be through school, work, or day-to-day living. However, beneath the surface of words lies a complex web of nonverbal cues that often serve as the silent language of our interactions. These cues, ranging from facial expressions and gestures to physical positioning and body language, play a crucial role in conveying meaning and go hand-in-hand with verbal communication in socialization and acts of interaction (Phutela, 2015). Within this realm of nonverbal communication, culture plays an essential part. According to what a culture determines, there can be several meanings attached to one form of nonverbal communication, thus making cross-cultural communication all the more necessary to understand (Jabber & Mahmood, 2020).

Today, nonverbal communication is more important than ever—advanced video technology has enabled computer-mediated communication to expand the benefits of face-to-face communication, now making non-verbal communication available in multiple formats. Here at UCLA, over 106 countries are represented within the 2023-24 school year student body, meaning that people from all over the world can connect face-to-face in both academic and non-academic settings. We became interested in understanding the meaning of nonverbal communication across different cultures, specifically how these gestures and behaviors relate to having a sense of social belonging in a culturally diverse community like UCLA.

Methods

We employed a two-step process to conduct our research and answer our primary research question: How does nonverbal communication across cultural groups contribute to one’s identity and ability to participate in various social settings, such as forming friendships and interacting with peers and professors?

The first phase involved a preliminary Google Form meant to collect data on undergraduate students at UCLA and their understanding of the relationship between body language and their culture, as well as their perception of body language within other cultures. The survey was spread through social media and word of mouth, with additional outreach to cultural clubs on campus to recruit respondents. Via the survey, we were able to collect demographic information such as one’s year at UCLA, gender identity, and cultural identity. Respondents were then asked to rate themselves on a scale regarding how comfortable they felt in nonverbally communicating or interacting with other students and faculty on campus. Similarly, they were asked to detail any instances in which nonverbal communication was misinterpreted as a result of their sociocultural differences. The collected data was then transformed into visual illustrations, such as graphs and spreadsheets, which provide indications for how people of different cultural backgrounds both understand and participate in nonverbal communication.

In the second phase, we reached out to individuals who had engaged with our survey and collected a total of five interviews from individuals from China, South Korea, Hungary, Spain, and Taiwan. Through our interviews, we were able to gain a deeper understanding of nonverbal communication and its impacts concerning cultural identity and one’s lived experience on campus. Additionally, we learned about personal experiences in which miscommunication or misinterpretations have occurred after using nonverbal communication with someone from a culture different than their own. Our respondents were able to elaborate in more detail than on their prior responses on the Google Form and explain their understanding of nonverbal communication across sociocultural contexts and interactions on campus and beyond.

Results and Analysis

Our research project on nonverbal communication between various cultural groups provides some important insights into how cultural background affects the interpretation of nonverbal cues in a variety of social contexts. The project’s survey and interview data revealed that a substantial majority of participants (76.2%) agreed that their cultural backgrounds—which included people from Chinese, South Korean, British, Taiwanese, Spanish, Hungarian, and Indian backgrounds—have an impact on their nonverbal communication, which includes gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, touch, space, and posture (Figure 1). The study also found that the three most common nonverbal communication techniques used by people with these cultural identities are facial expressions, gestures, and eye contact (Figure 2). However, 47% of the respondents reported that they felt uneasy interpreting nonverbal cues from other cultures (Figure 4), and another 24% said that they had experienced a misunderstanding of nonverbal cues from someone of a different cultural background (Figure 5). These results demonstrate the nuanced function that nonverbal cues play in cross-cultural relationships, showing that these cues can both help and hinder connection between people of different cultural backgrounds in their attempts to understand each other.

Furthermore, our results yielded information regarding socialization and identity formation on campus. Through our survey and interviews, we were able to understand that students form in and out-groups according to feelings of acceptance or isolation associated with their nonverbal communication style. The students we interviewed explained that perceived cultural influences in their nonverbal communication caused them to feel a sense of social “othering” by American students who positioned themselves above these varying cultural identities due to their variation from the American, hegemonic standard at UCLA. With this, students embodied feelings of anxiety and disconnection that enabled them to develop in-groups with other international students, while feeling like a collective out-group from American students and faculty. Similarly, our research further supports the elimination of universal forms of nonverbal communication as both the expression and interpretation of nonverbal communication differ widely according to culture. This is additionally evidenced by students’ use of code-switching in nonverbal communication on campus. Many students expressed that they picked up on more Americanized forms of nonverbal communication, such as being more forward with their gestures and body language, and adapted their own forms of nonverbal communication to conform with this standard. For example, in our interview with a South Korean student, she expressed that she has a nonverbal linguistic repertoire of both South Korean and American influence and can “tap into” each form of nonverbal communication depending on who she is talking to. Through our research, we were able to gather data on the importance of nonverbal communication in identity expression, social and scholastic inclusion, and sociocultural power dynamics.

Figure 1: Cultural Influence on Nonverbal Communication. The Y-axis represents the number of responses. The X-axis represents the scale of agreement with the prompt: 1=Not at all, 2=Very little, 3=Somewhat, 4=A good amount, 5=Definitely.

Figure 2: Most Common Forms of Nonverbal Communication. The Y-axis represents the forms of nonverbal communication. The X-axis represents the number of responses.

Figure 3: Cultural Importance of Nonverbal Communication. The Y-axis represents the number of responses. The X-axis represents the scale of agreement with the prompt: 1=Not at all, 2=Very little, 3=Somewhat, 4=A good amount, 5=Extremely.

Figure 4: Comfortability in Interpreting Nonverbal Communication from Different Cultural Backgrounds. The Y-axis represents the number of responses. The X-axis represents the scale of agreement with the prompt: 1=Not at all, 2=Very little, 3=Somewhat, 4=A good amount, 5=Extremely.

Figure 5: Cultural Influence on Misunderstandings in Nonverbal Communication.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our results illuminate that a multitude of misunderstandings within nonverbal communication arise from a difference in sociocultural upbringing. Although our results were specific to UCLA students, our research on nonverbal communication and its cultural ties serves as a model for further understanding and analyzing the implications of nonverbal communication on socialization and identity formation. College campuses are known to be extremely diverse communities, bringing in students from all around the world, thus replicating a larger world context through a social and scholastic lens. In this context, we were able to understand that cultural background largely influences how people both express and interpret nonverbal communication. Misinterpretations, as well as feelings of social isolation, were directly tied to cultural differences in nonverbal communication, with students expressing their need to code-switch and conform to American standards of nonverbal communication to feel fully comfortable interacting on campus. It is these nonverbal misunderstandings that play into the larger phenomenon of miscommunication due to cultural differences, thus pointing to the need to study this subject further.

The main point of our study was to provide awareness of a struggle that many students experience at UCLA, but, similarly, what many people face on a day-to-day basis around the world. We want to provide empathy regarding differences in communication and how cultural influence should be recognized and accepted instead of stigmatized. It is essential to understand how cultural identities influence nonverbal communication to not only ensure ease in interaction and information sharing, but to also ensure that all individuals, no matter their cultural background, feel included and understood. We hope our project further sparks discussions about nonverbal communication and its sociocultural influences in order to increase cross-cultural competence, enhance empathy, and educate others on the importance of communication.

References

Akkilinc, F. (2019, August). The Body Language of Culture. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 7(8), 32-39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335689301_The_Body_Language_of_Culture

Jabber, K. W., & Mahmood, A. A. (2020). Non-verbal communication between two non-native English speakers: Iraqi and Chinese. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(2), 189-196.

Kirch, M. S. (1979). Non-Verbal Communication across Cultures. The Modern Language Journal, 63(8), 416-423. https://www.jstor.org/stable/326027

Phutela, D. (2015). The importance of non-verbal communication. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 9(4), 43.

Ren, Z. (2014). Body Language in Different Cultures. US-China Foreign Language, 12(12). https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2014.12.008

Rugsaken, K. (2006). Body Speaks: Body Language Around the World. NACADA. https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Body-Language-Around-the-World.aspx

Thompson, J. (2023, May 15). How Much of Communication is Nonverbal?. The University of Texas Permian Basin. https://online.utpb.edu/about-us/articles/communication/how-much-of-communication-is-nonverbal/

body language, Code-Switching, college students, cultural identity, miscommunication

Analyzing Miscommunication and Preferences in Face-to-Face vs. Texting Among College Students

Sociolinguistics

Adam Bouaricha, Emily Haddad, Ryan Kimura, Usuhe Maston, Natalia Adomaitis

Reportedly, 97% of young adults aged 18 to 24 are actively engaged in texting (Smith, 2011). Central to our inquiry is exploring how college students adeptly navigate misunderstandings and mend communication breakdowns within their text-based interactions with peers, friends, and romantic partners. Speciﬁcally focusing on the demographic of college students aged 18 to 22, our study delves into the myriad factors contributing to miscommunication within this cohort. Using a comprehensive mixed-method approach, we integrate surveys with picture-based evidence for enhanced analysis. Drawing upon the framework of multimodal conversational analysis, our research endeavors to unravel the intricacies of repair mechanisms, encompassing trouble sources, repair initiation, and ensuing solutions in text-based interactions. Analysis of our diverse sample of college students unveils that critical trouble sources, such as the absence of tone and social cues, substantially inﬂuence the occurrence of misunderstandings. Participants demonstrate a keen awareness of communication breakdowns, prompting proactive engagement in repair solutions to rectify discrepancies. Through rigorous thematic analysis of survey responses, we discern prevalent patterns and adaptive strategies individuals employ to navigate the complexities of miscommunication within text-based interactions. Ultimately, this study enriches our understanding of the nuanced challenges inherent in digital communication practices among college students, contributing valuable insights to the broader discourse on eﬀective communication in the digital age.

Introduction and Background

The main problem we wanted to investigate was what factors contribute to miscommunication in our target population of college students ages 18-22, since texting (computer mediated communication) is so prevalent in our observed demographic. Our project design observed whether college students preferred texting or live conversations (face-to-face) as a means of communication. While somewhat scarce, previous research on this topic has allowed us to form a basic understanding of miscommunication over text. Studies have shown that the lack of cues, ubiquity, and brevity of interactions during CMC provide a disadvantage compared to FTF communication. Previously, students have felt that texting has both its advantages and disadvantages, and did not indicate a strong preference for CMC or FTF (Kelly et al 2012). Another study found that emojis can serve as speech acts. Emojis possess meaning and intent behind their usage, but their ambiguity over CMC is where miscommunication arises. It was shown that senders and receivers of texts both signiﬁcantly overestimate the eﬀectiveness of an emoji in conveying meaning, which can lead to miscommunication (Holtgraves 2024). Our research aims to ﬁll the gap left by previous research, especially because much of the research on this topic is over ten years old. We also hope to narrow the scope of such a topic, focusing on a more speciﬁc group (college students), rather than a wider range of demographics. Similarly, many studies emphasize emojis and their ability to perform speech acts (Holtgraves 2024). While we do not deny the role emojis play in communication or miscommunication, we also observed the use of acronyms and slang, as well as the lack of FTF multimodal communication such as tone, gesture, and facial expression. Our paper builds on prior research to answer why online miscommunication occurs and whether CMC or FTF is preferred amongst college students ages 18-22 when communicating.

Methods

The method we used to analyze the results of our data was multimodal conversational analysis. One of the factors we mainly focused on was repair. Three components involved in analyzing repair in our data are: 1. The trouble source, or what’s causing the miscommunication, 2. Repair initiation, how the problem is being addressed, and 3. Repair solution, how do the participants solve the problem (Hoey & Kendrick, 2017). In observing instances of miscommunication from our observed community of college students ages 18-22, trouble sources such as lack of tone, social cues, body language, and other multimodal factors, contributed to miscommunication over text or as one respondent stated, “ a common issue between me and my partner is that I’m a blunt texter (no punctuation or emojis) and he’s the opposite. So my texts make him feel like I’m upset at him when in reality I’m just trying to respond as quickly as possible” (anonymous participant). While further analyzing our responses from the Google Form we sent to our participants, repair initiation typically occurred when the people involved in the conversation realized a mishap occurred. Repair solutions transpired as senders and receivers addressed what was miscommunicated and what was actually intended. As in Figure 1, an apology was used and deemed honest because one person admitted the error and explained the problem. Here is another example from our data where these three components of repair can be observed in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Example from our data of using repair in conversational analysis as researched (Hoey & Kendrick, 2017).

Results and Analysis

Figure 2: Responses to survey question: “How much would you say you prefer texting over in-person interaction?”

Figure 3: Responses to survey question: “How much of a frequent texter are you?”

Our sample population ﬁt our target population, with over 50% of participants being upperclassmen with all having a variety of majors encompassing STEM, the humanities, and social sciences. Figure 2 shows that 52.6% of respondents claimed that they preferred CMC over face-to-face interaction, and ﬁgure 3 shows that 42.1% text a little frequently, with 3-5 text conversations occurring a day. All but 2 respondents had listed English as their primary language, at 89% of the responses, the two outliers had put Spanish as their primary language; however, all the examples we received from participants were wholly in English. Participants were prompted to provide an example, either as a screenshot of a CMC conversation or to type out an example. The following question asked respondents to identify the miscommunication, which allowed us to better analyze and understand how they occurred. The majority of participants listed that they were close to their communication partner in their provided example, with 57.8% of respondents identifying their partner as either a friend, signiﬁcant other, or family member. However, despite this closeness and increased familiarity much of the self-identiﬁed reasons for miscommunication arose from a lack of tone, or being too blunt while writing. Some wrote that their communication “[felt] like [it] had sass”, that their blunt texting style makes their signiﬁcant other believe that they’re “upset at him”, and one respondent wrote that “I can never tell if they’re being sarcastic or genuine”. Other than lack of tone, the second most common misunderstanding was simply one party not being familiar with a word/phrase/acronym being used by their conversation partner.

Discussion and Conclusions

As we examine our results, we can conclude that, based on the demonstrated sample size (initially inﬂuenced by previously conducted studies citing technological relevance in eﬀective age groups (Hemmer, Heidi 2009), there is a noticeable preference for in-person, face-to-face communication over computer-mediated conversation. As we had begun to hypothesize how the signiﬁcance of multimodality comes into play in regard to the interpretation of language through CMC, contextual research, in addition to our data, has allowed us to develop a means of identifying the conditions that allow for the total utility multimodal communication, or a lack thereof within the identiﬁed samples. We attempt to examine the aspect of repair within our use of multimodal conversation analysis; recognizing the lack of physical indicators that help to form comprehendible, precise conversations within CMC, followed up with the identiﬁcation of said misinterpretation of communication acknowledged by both parties, and ﬁnally, resolution of both parties being reached upon clariﬁcation. When examining the submitted data from a phenomenological lens, we identify the occurrence of these criteria from an individual yet quantiﬁed perspective.

References

Hemmer, Heidi (2009) “Impact of Text Messaging on Communication,” Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato: Vol. 9, Article 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56816/2378-6949.1058 Available at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/jur/vol9/iss1/5

Hoey, E.M., & Kendrick, K.H. (2017). Conversational Analysis. Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and the Neurobiology of Language https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2328034_8/component/ﬁle_3513001/content

Holtgraves, T. (2024). Emoji, Speech Acts, and Perceived Communicative Success. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 43(1), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231200450

Kelly, L., Keaten, J. A., Becker, B., Cole, J., Littleford, L., & Rothe, B. (2012). “It’s the american lifestyle! ”: An investigation of text messaging by college students. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2012.719203

Smith, A. (2011). How Americans Use Text Messaging. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech; Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/09/19/how-americans-use-text-messag ing/.

CMC, college students, miscommunication, texting

The Curse of Online Miscommunication

Sociolinguistics

Christie Nguyen, Taymor Flower, Tatiana Paredes, Risa Nagase

With the burgeoning of technology, communication has drastically changed and shifted to texting on electronic devices. Unparalleled to this, conversations have become much more accessible, and texting has revolutionized the way we interact with one another, but at what cost? The purpose of this study was to determine the factors that lead to miscommunication in the digital world. The methodology used was survey research, in which the data collected were through questionnaires that were administered to participants individually. The participants were of the ages 18 to 22, undergraduate students at UCLA, and in a romantic, heterosexual relationship. The participants were asked a series of questions about whether or not there is miscommunication online between them and their partners. If so, they were asked to submit a screenshot demonstrating miscommunication or explain their interaction. Overall, the findings from the survey indicate that miscommunication online occurs frequently as a result of a lack of social cues, including tone, emotion, body gestures, and facial expressions. Many couples had issues with mistaking texts as a joke, missing a joke, not understanding sarcasm, not understanding passive aggressiveness, and mistaking blunt responses as rude.

Introduction and Background

With the prevalence of technology in today’s society, texting has become the most prominent form of communication. Texting is convenient and easily accessible, as it does not require all participants to be active at the same time, unlike conversing in-person or over the phone. By 2010, worldwide, there were five billion mobile connections, and it was estimated that on average, Americans sent 50 to 110 texts per day (Hall & Baym, 2011). However, the biggest issue texting entails is miscommunication, which is a result of indirectness, a lack of non-verbal cues, and a lack of impersonal connection. In computer-mediated communication, such as texting, many may use emojis to communicate, as it helps depict facial expressions and display emotions and gestures. Though, there may be incongruencies between the receiver and the sender, as the perceived meaning of the emoji may not be the intended meaning (Yang, 2019). Using emojis and texting cannot precisely convey emotions, body language, intonation, gestures, and all other cues that would be present in-person communication. For our study, we distributed surveys to individuals that are in relationships and communicate online to gauge the efficacy of communication via texting. If the participant agreed that texting results in miscommunication, we asked them to provide screenshots to corroborate our thesis. We hypothesize visual cues (e.g. facial expressions, eye contact, gestures, tone of voice) have fundamental communicative functions, and the absence of them when communicating online leads to miscommunication.

Methods

In order to conduct this study, we asked a series of questions that contextualized respondents’ opinions on, and style of, online communication; then, we asked respondents to either send in screenshots or a written account of a miscommunication with their partner. Our target audience was 18-22-year-old UCLA students in heterosexual relationships; in order to collect samples, we sent out surveys to people who we knew to be in active relationships. There were 11 survey questions in short answer format. Some of the questions that were more important in the analysis of our data were:

Gender identification (Male, Female, other).
In general, do you find it easier to communicate online or in person?
Why do you prefer in person/online communication more?
Do you feel like you can tell others what you want to say properly online? How about in person?
Do you feel more understood when communicating in person or online?
Do you find that your partner communicates in a different way than you do online?
Can you provide screenshots of a conversation with your partner that resulted in miscommunication? (For example: something over text that resulted in a miscommunication/argument, sarcasm that was misunderstood, misinterpreting tone, etc. No need to share anything too personal, just any type of miscommunication over text!)
If you can’t find any screenshots, can you provide a written account with examples of a miscommunication with your partner that occurred online?
How was this miscommunication resolved?

The segments of the survey we analyzed more closely were the responses related to conflict resolution in online communication. The questions relating to respondents’ perspective of online communication helped to contextualize their miscommunications with their partners; offering possible explanations to why the miscommunication happened in the first place and how dissonance in communication is resolved The screenshots and accounts that respondents provided were the most pertinent to our analysis because they helped to emphasize the importance of body language and visual cues in communication within relationships.

Results

As it turns out, the results of the study indicated that a lot of miscommunication does occur when using online mediums rather than being in-person. We surveyed 20 people and when assessing our data, it revealed that 100% of our participants felt like they were more understood in person rather than online, 90% of which felt that it was easier to communicate in person as well (Figure 1). This is to say that the preferred medium to communicate is simply face-to-face. Some of our participants explicitly stated that being in person allowed for the analysis of body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice – something that texting lacks. When speaking about their interactions with their partners online, the fact that certain jokes or sarcasm would fly over their heads was common. One participant mentioned that even the tone of voice would have been enough for their partner to understand their sarcasm – something that texting did not offer. Another common occurrence was that emotions were not easily read and did not get the point across. 50% of participants then followed up and said that the miscommunication was resolved in person and 40% said that even a call afterward was helpful in getting their message across more correctly after it was not received as intended (Figure 2). When asked about if it may have been different if they would’ve talked in person rather than online, they all agreed that it would have. They reiterated that the cues that were missing from in person communication made it more difficult to understand each other.

Despite the uses of emojis, slang abbreviations, or punctuation, there still runs the risk of someone interpreting the message in an entirely different way than intended.

Figure 1: Is it easier to communicate in person rather than online?
Blue: Yes
Red: No

Figure 2: Was the miscommunication via text resolved?
Green: Yes, resolved in-person
Orange: Yes, resolved in a call
Blue: Not resolved

Similarly, because all they could see were words on a screen, participants mentioned that texting did not have the range to truly express their emotions as they felt that a lot of context would be left out and they felt the need to shorten their messages – texting did not prove to be as fluid as face-to-face conversation could have been. This is all to say that online communication feels more impersonal and cryptic than in person communication does and that ultimately leads to issues between the two parties.

In our survey, we had asked participants to provide screenshots of miscommunication, if possible, and to explain what was miscommunicated, why, and how it was miscommunicated.

Figure 3: Misinterpreting Emoji and Conversation

In Figure 3, our participant explained that she thought her partner was ignoring her, but he had just fallen asleep. They had arranged plans together, and when he fell asleep, it completely ruined her plans because they misunderstood each other over text. Moreover, our participant explained that she was frustrated at this moment, and even more aggravated when he sent the emoji (smiley face with water drop) because she thought he was laughing and ridiculing the situation. They had called over the phone to resolve the issue, and it was more clearly understood by both parties about their intentions. It was also explained by her partner that the emoji was used to indicate nervousness, and he sent a smiling emoji to make light of the situation. This snapshot demonstrates how the use of emojis may be perceived differently, and that texting leads to miscommunication.

Moreover, in Figure 4, our participant had misinterpreted what their partner said and mistook it for ill intent, which led to an extremely heated argument. The following day, their partner had suggested calling to understand each other better and to clear up any misinterpretations. This reveals how without seeing a person face-to-face and hearing their tone, it is difficult to understand their intent.

Figure 4: Misunderstanding Text and Arguing

Lastly, in Figure 5, our participant includes a screenshot of his partner quickly getting aggressive with him over text. He had made a joke to her, without much indication over text that it was a joke, and that had triggered her to react angrily. With the lack of intonation, gestures, and facial expression, it is difficult to understand sarcasm over text, especially when both partners do not have the same texting styles.

Discussion and Conclusions

Our research has found that online communication is not as an effective medium of communication than in-person communication. The lack of non-verbal signifiers that give more depth and nuance to creating meaning are important for clear comprehension between two parties; tone of voice, inflection, facial expressions, and body language are integral to completely understanding an individual Online communication gives society the ability to communicate with each other anywhere/anytime easily and efficiently, and still holds significant merit. The use of emojis has been understood to enhance messaging and allow more expression and personality through texts, by emphasizing certain emotions and giving more context to a written message via text. An insightful TedxTalk by Anna Lomanowska, a PhD Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology, analyzes the challenges of communication online, and how the utilization of emojis is ineffective and leads to miscommunication. Although emojis have been very useful in capturing some nuances of people’s online messages, there is still a disconnect in comparison to in-person communication; Lomanowska cites a University of Minnesota study, which found that people disagree around 25% of the time about the meaning of emoticons and their emotional valence, giving more room to misunderstanding.

There is a richness and depth to non-verbal communication that is impossible to recreate or replicate in text message scenarios. Communication with a romantic partner is something that is a cornerstone to a healthy relationship; disagreements and misunderstandings over text happen because there is a lack of emotional nuance and emotion, both of which are important elements in a romantic relationship that is emotionally charged and driven. Non-verbal communication signifiers can include: facial expressions, posture, gestures, eye contact, touch, space, and voice (Segal et al., n.d.). All of these elements contribute to roles of communication that can only be understood in the context of in-person interaction. Non-verbal forms of communication work to complement verbal messages, accent emotion or importance of verbal messages, substitute for verbal messages, repeat verbal messages, and even convey contradiction (where an individual says something about their body language does not match the verbal messaging) (Segal et al., n.d.).

This study emphasizes the importance of emotional nuances advanced by nonverbal cues that is lacking in online communication. This study is useful to contextualize the nature of misunderstandings that happen online and provide information to people in relationships, either romantic or platonic, on the benefits and drawbacks of meaningful conversation via text and online mediums.

References

Hall, J. A., & Baym, N. K. (2011). Calling and texting (too much): Mobile maintenance expectations, (over)dependence, entrapment, and friendship satisfaction. New Media & Society, 14(2), 316-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811415047

Segal, J., Smith, M., Robinson, L., & Boose, G. (n.d.). Nonverbal Communication and Body Language. HelpGuide.org. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://www.helpguide.org/articles/relationshipscommunication/Nonverbalcommunication.htm

TEDxTalks. (2019, July 10). Why Emojis Don’t Say Enough | Anna Lomanowska | TEDxUofT [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LZH_-g9FXQ&ab_channel=TEDxTalks

Yang, Y. (2019). Are you emoji savvy? Exploring nonverbal communication through emojis. Communication Teacher, 34(1), 2-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2019.1593472

miscommunication, Technology, texting, virtual