Abstract
This paper explores the use of paralinguistics, defined as cues which facilitate interaction and communication without the use of specific words (e.g., emoticons, emojis) in instructor-student technologically-mediated out-of-class communication (TMOCC). Using an experiment manipulating cue use and instructor sex in initial emails, we examined how respondents’ (N = 236) impressions of instructors’ credibility and immediacy are influenced by these paralinguistics. Results suggest instructors who use paralinguistics may be perceived as more immediate and caring but less competent; perceived trustworthiness was unaffected by paralinguistic use. Instructor sex did not generate significant differences in students’ impressions. These findings have implications for current instructors when engaging in TMOCC with students; limitations and future directions are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, A. S. (2013). Student perceptions of teacher emoticon usage: The effect on teacher credibility and liking (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ScholarWorks of Sacramento State (No. 1924).
Alton, L. (2017, May). Phone calls, texts or email? Here’s how millennials prefer to communicate. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/2017/05/11/how-do-millennials-prefer-to-communicate/#2586731a6d6f.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.
Bai, Q., Dan, Q., Mu, Z., & Yang, M. (2019). A systematic review of emoji: Current research and future perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02221.
Banfield, S. R., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500343400.
Beattie, A. J. (2017). Interpersonal impressions of emoji use in computer-mediated decision making (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ScholarWorks of Western Michigan University (No. 931).
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1 & 2), 30–48.
Butterworth, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., White, J., Cantu, L., & Fraser, K. C. (2019). Sender gender influences emoji interpretation in text messages. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 784. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00784.
Byron, K., & Baldridge, D. C. (2007). E-mail recipients’ impressions of senders’ likability: The interactive effect of nonverbal cues and recipients’ personality. Journal of Business Communication, 44(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943606297902.
Carr, C. T., Hayes, R. A., & Sumner, E. M. (2018). Predicting a threshold of perceived Facebook post success via likes and reactions: A test of explanatory mechanisms. Communication Research Reports, 35(2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1409618.
Centra, J. A., & Gaubatz, N. B. (2000). Is there a gender bias in student evaluations of teaching? The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 17–33.
Chromey, K., Duchsherer, A., Pruett, J., & Vareberg, K. (2016). Double-edge sword: Social media use in the classroom. Educational Media International, 53(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2016.1189259.
Churches, O., Nicholls, M., Thiessen, M., Kohler, M., & Keage, H. (2014). Emoticons in mind: An event-related potential study. Social Neuroscience, 9(2), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2013.873737.
Clark-Gordon, C. V., Bowman, N. D., Watts, E. R., Banks, J., & Knight, J. M. (2018). “As good as your word”: Face-threat mitigation and the use of instructor nonverbal cues on students’ perceptions of digital feedback. Communication Education, 67(2), 206–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1428759.
Dobransky, N. D., & Frymier, A. B. (2004). Developing teacher-student relationships through out of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 211–223.
Doiron, J. A. G. (2018). Emojis: Visual communication in higher education. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning, 2(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2018.22.0111.
Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20, 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.x.
Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Keaten, J. A. (2005). College faculty use and perceptions of electronic mail to communicate with students. Communication Quarterly, 53(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370500090118.
Finn, A. N., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2013). Teacher power mediates the effects of technology policies on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 62(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.725132.
Finn, A. N., Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Elledge, N., Jernberg, K. A., & Larson, L. M. (2009). A meta-analytical review of teacher credibility and its associations with teacher behaviors and student outcomes. Communication Education, 58(4), 516–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903131154.
Fusani, D. S. (1994). “Extra-class” communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and satisfaction in student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 232–255.
Gesselman, A. N., Ta, V. P., & Garcia, J. R. (2019). Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PLoSONE, 14(8), e0221297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221297.
Gigliotti, R. J. (1987). Are they getting what they expect? Teaching Sociology, 15(4), 365–375.
Goldman, Z. W., Goodboy, A. K., & Bolkan, S. (2016). A meta-analytical review of students’ out-of-class communication and learning effects. Communication Quarterly, 64, 476–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1103293.
Goldman, Z. W., Cranmer, G. A., Sollitto, M., Labelle, S., & Lancaster, A. L. (2017). What do college students want? A prioritization of instructional behaviors and characteristics. Communication Education, 66(3), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1265135.
Harnish, R. J., & Bridges, K. R. (2011). Effect of syllabus tone: Students’ perceptions of instructor and course. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9152-4.
Hassini, E. (2006). Student-instructor communication: The role of email. Computers & Education, 47, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.014.
Hayes, R. A., Carr, C. T., & Wohn, D. Y. (2016). One click, many meanings: Interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(1), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127248.
Hayes, R. A., Wesselmann, E. D., & Carr, C. T. (2018). When nobody “likes” you: Perceived ostracism through paralinguistic digital affordances within social media. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118800309.
Hoffman, E. M. (2014). Faculty and student relationships: Context matters. College Teaching, 62, 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2013.817379.
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (2002). Out-of-class communication between female and male students and faculty: The relationship to student perceptions of instructor immediacy. Women's Studies in Communication, 25(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2002.10162443.
Kelly, S. E. (2012). Examining the role of perceived immediacy as a mediator: Revisiting the relationships among immediate behaviors, liking, and disclosure (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN.
Kelly, S., & Westerman, C. Y. K. (2014). Immediacy as an influence on supervisor-subordinate communication. Communication Research Reports, 31(3), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2014.924335.
Kohlan, R. G. (1973). A comparison of faculty evaluations early and late in the course. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(8), 587–595.
Ledbetter, A. M., & Finn, A. N. (2018). Perceived teacher credibility and students’ affect as a function of instructors’ use of PowerPoint and email. Communication Education, 67(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1385821.
Ledbetter, A. M., & Larson, K. A. (2008). Nonverbal cues in e-mail supportive communication. Information, Communication & Society, 11(8), 1089–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180802109022.
Legg, A. M., & Wilson, J. H. (2009). E-mail from professor enhances student motivation and attitudes. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902960034.
Li, Q. (2006). Computer-mediated communication: A meta-analysis of male and female attitudes and behaviors. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), 525–570.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464.
McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 24–34.
McCulloch, G. (2019). Because Internet. New York City, NY: Riverhead Books.
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Methods & designs: Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1(6), 203–207.
Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2001). The roles of sex, empathy, and credibility in out-of-class communication between faculty and students. Women's Studies in Communication, 24(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2001.10162436.
O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(4), 464–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X04269588.
Pogue, L. L., & Ah Yun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600748623.
Prada, M., Rodrigues, D. L., Carrido, M. V., Lopes, D., Cavalheiro, B., & Gaspar, R. (2018). Motives, frequency and attitudes toward emoji and emoticon use. Telematics and Infomatics, 35, 1925–1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.06.005.
Priddis, D. (2013). Adding personality to the college online classroom: A comparative study between students and educators regarding the use of emoticons. Paper presented at central states communication association, Kansas City, KS.
Rees, J. (2014, June). Office hours are obsolete. Chronicle Vitae. Retrieved from https://chroniclevitae.com/news/534-office-hours-are-obsolete
Rezabek, L. L., & Cochenour, J. J. (1998). Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: Supplementing text with emoticons. Journal of Visual Literacy, 18(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.1998.11674539.
Sidelinger, R. J., & Bolen, D. M. (2016). Instructor credibility as a mediator of instructors’ compulsive communication and student communication satisfaction in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 33(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2015.1117438.
Sumner, E. M., Hayes, R. A., Carr, C. T., & Wohn, D. Y. (2020). Assessing the cognitive and communicative properties of Facebook reactions and likes as lightweight feedback cues. First Monday, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i2.9624.
Supiano, B. (2018, August). How one email from you could help students succeed. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-One-Email-From-You-Could/244223
Tang, T., & Hew, K. F. (2019). Emoticon, emoji, and stick use in computer-mediated communication: A review of theories and research findings. International Journal of Communication, 13, 2457–2483.
Teven, J. J. (2007). Teacher caring and classroom behavior: Relationships with student affect and perceptions of teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 55(4), 443–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370701658077.
Teven, J., & Katt, J. (2016). Instructor credibility. In P. L. Witt (Ed.), Communication and learning (pp. 183–210). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Inc..
Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47(4), 348–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379141.
Vareberg, K. R., Luo, Z., Westerman, D. K., Bartels, M., & Lindmark, P. (2018). For a good class, email: Technologically-mediated out-of-class communication and instructional outcomes, National Communication Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
Waldeck, J. H., & LaBelle, S. (2016). Theoretical and methodological approaches to instructional communication. In P. L. Witt (Ed.), Communication and learning (pp. 67–102). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Inc..
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001.
Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretations in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19(3), 324–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900307.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 460–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004002.
Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 36–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X04273036.
Willoughby, J. F., & Liu, S. (2018). Do pictures help tell the story? An experimental test of narrative and emojis in a health text message intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.031.
Young, S., Kelsey, D., & Lancaster, A. (2011). Predicted outcome value of e-mail communication: Factors that foster professional relational development between students and teachers. Communication Education, 60(4), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2011.563388.
Young, S. L., Pulido, M. D., & Brooks, C. F. (2018). Reasons for student engagement in extra-class communication. Communication Research Reports, 35(2), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1383234.
Zhang, Q., & Oetzel, J. G. (2006). A cross-cultural test of immediacy-learning models in Chinese classrooms. Communication Education, 55(3), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600748599.
Zhang, Q., & Witt, P. L. (2016). Instructor immediacy. In P. L. Witt (Ed.), Communication and learning (pp. 157–181). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Inc..
Zhou, R., Hentschel, J., & Kumar, N. (2017). Goodbye text, hello emoji: Mobile communication on WeChat in China. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI 17, 748–759.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Emojis | Emoticons | Neither | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
Initial Impression | 4.71a | .58 | 4.82a | .64 | 4.43b | .55 |
Immediacy | 5.71a | .78 | 5.93a | .69 | 4.75b | 1.10 |
Credibility – Competence | 4.79a | .94 | 4.99a | 1.11 | 5.48b | .89 |
Credibility – Trustworthiness | 5.01a | .92 | 5.25a | 1.12 | 5.23a | .96 |
Credibility – Goodwill | 5.25a | 1.11 | 5.64b | .91 | 4.77c | .98 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vareberg, K.R., Westerman, D. To: -) or to ☺, that is the question: a study of students’ initial impressions of instructors’ paralinguistic cues. Educ Inf Technol 25, 4501–4516 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10181-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10181-9