Linda K Kaye’s research while affiliated with Edge Hill University and other places

Chapter 3 reviews a range of specific theoretical frameworks that are suited to explore key mechanisms of emoji processing. This is distinctive from Chap. 2 in respect of identifying specific theories rather than broader approaches. This helps better explain how the features of these theoretical frameworks might be operationalised within research to address certain research questions and used within certain paradigms. Theories are situated under broader approaches of emotional processing, cognitive processing and interpersonal processing. Examples of theoretical frameworks include: The Associative-Propositional Evaluation Model (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, Psychological Bulletin 132:692–731, 2006; Social Cognition 25:687–717, 2007), Broaden-and-Build theory (Fredrickson, Review of General Psychology 2:300–319, 1998), Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST; Gray, The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Clarendon Press, 1982; Cognitive neurochemistry:171–190. Oxford University Press, 1987), Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, 1980), Perceptual symbol systems framework (Barsalou, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22:577–660, 1999), Sensory-semantic model (Nelson, Levels of processing in human memory:45–76. Erlbaum, 1979), Dual Coding Model (Paivio, Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), Prototypical Model of Picture and Word Processing (Snodgrass, Processing of visible language. Nato conference series, Vol. 13. Springer, 1980), Social Information Processing Theory (Walther, Communication Research 19:52–90, 1992), Emotion As Social Information Model (EASI; Van Kleef, Current Directions in Psychological Science 18:184–188, 2009), Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, Management Science 32:554–571, 1986), Media Naturalness Theory (Kock, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 48:117–130, 2005; Applied evolutionary psychology:380–398. Oxford University Press, 2011), Channel Expansion Theory (Carlson & Zmud, Academy of Management Journal 42:153–170, 1999), Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the Realistic Accuracy Model (Funder, Psychological Review 102:652, 1995). Chapter 3 includes a summary of key take-away points which synthesise which theoretical framework might be best suited to understanding different types of questions about how we process emoji.

Chapter 5 synthesises the key learning and take-home points from the book and articulates an informed judgement about the state of play and future opportunities for the psychological study of emoji processing. This presents the “Emoji Processing Model” and the “Emoji Research Toolkit” as pragmatic resources to help researchers themselves advance the study of emoji processing.

Chapter 2 reviews the range of approaches that researchers have used to study how we process emoji. This includes: face processing, emotion recognition, psycholinguistics, grounded cognition and interpersonal processing. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the main principles of these approaches, the types of research questions these approaches have addressed and the relevant insights gained.

Chapter 4 reviews the various methodological paradigms and measurements which have been used in the study of emoji processing. This is structured under implicit and explicit measures. These include Spatial Stroop tasks, Lexical and semantic decision tasks, Dot Probe tasks, eye-tracking, Approach-Avoidance tasks, Go/No-Go tasks, neuroimaging, memory retrieval tasks, perception and attitude scales, and sentiment scales. Chapter 4 provides a summary of take-away points about general findings across methodological paradigms and where opportunities may reside on how these methodological paradigms might be used to advance the study of emoji processing.

The issue of whether social media use does or does not influence youth internalizing mental health disorders (e.g., anxiety, depression) remains a pressing concern for policymakers, parents, and psychologists. Widespread claims suggest potentially harmful effects of social media use on youth. This was investigated in a meta-analysis of 46 studies of youth social media use and mental health. Results indicated that the current pool of research is unable to support claims of harmful effects for social media use on youth internalizing disorders. Some types of methodological weaknesses, such as evident demand characteristics and lack of preregistration, remain common in this area. It is recommended that caution is issued when attributing mental health harm to social media use as the current evidence cannot support this.

Background & Aim: Studies have produced inconsistent findings when exploring relationships between social media usage (SMU) and wellbeing. This likely reflects the vast heterogeneity in subjective measures of SMU, coupled with a lack of consideration for the factors that influence different styles of SMU and drive individual differences in susceptibility to their effects. To advance our understanding of social media effects, the present study used a novel objective measure of individuals’ behaviour on social networking sites to examine whether distinct SMU styles are related differentially to social competencies that support real-world social interaction, and if these user characteristics mediate relationships between SMU styles and indices of psychosocial wellbeing. Methods: A total of 509 participants (261 females) completed the Social Networking Site Behaviour Task that measured styles of SMU objectively, the Multidimensional Social Competency Scale that captured self-reported competencies in seven domains of interpersonal behaviour, and four subjective measures of psychosocial wellbeing. Findings: We identify interactive, reactive and passive SMU styles, reveal that users expressing these distinct styles differ on several social competencies, and discover that these competencies mediate differential relationships between SMU styles and indices of psychosocial wellbeing. Discussion: Just as individual differences in social competencies manifest in face-to-face interactions, we suggest that they also underpin SMU styles and shape individual differences in susceptibility to their effects on wellbeing.

Despite the popularity of social media, we have little understanding of how “social” these platforms actually are. “Social media use” is often considered in generic terms or dichotomized into active or passive use. However, this does not explain the specific behaviors users engage in. We explored this with respect to different social media platforms, namely Instagram and Facebook. The overall sample of nine participants included four males and five females between the ages of 18 and 36. Participants took part in semistructured interviews to describe their behaviors when using either Instagram (n = 4) or Facebook (n = 5). From reflexive thematic analysis, the first theme was “Determinants of using social media,” with two subthemes. This main theme describes factors that generally motivate people to use the respective social media platform. However, the second theme was “Determinants of behaviors,” with seven subthemes, which relate more specifically to particular actions or behaviors that specific platforms afford users to be able to do. There were clear distinctions between what might constitute social media “use” (first theme) and social media “behaviors” (second theme). Our findings suggest that concepts of “active” and “passive” use are not sufficient to capture the complexities of underpinning behaviors or sensitive to the within-person and between-context variations that explain behaviors underpinning social media use.

We explore whether emoji were associatively linked to emotion concepts represented in emotion-laden words, in line with the Associative-Propositional Evaluation model. Specifically, we tested these principles by exploring whether emotionally-congruent emoji could enhance word processing (Study 1 & 2) and recall (Study 3). In Study 1, participants completed a lexical decision task where word valence was manipulated. Emoji were appended to words which were either congruent, incongruent, or controls. No effects were found for emoji valence on response accuracy or latency. Study 2 presented words which varied in valence alongside congruent or control emoji where self-report valence evaluations were obtained. No effects were observed for emoji valence on word valence evaluations. Study 3 included emoji as primes to test the effect on word recall. No effects were found on word recall accuracy. Overall, the current findings suggest that emoji do not support word processing and may not be associatively linked to emotion concepts.