Difficulty: Introductory to Intermediate. Prerequisites: basic familiarity with experimental design (independent and dependent variables, between-subjects designs) and core social psychology concepts (in-group/out-group, group dynamics).
This topic sits at the intersection of computer-mediated communication and group dynamics within social psychology. As digital messaging replaces face-to-face interaction in workplaces and study groups, understanding how non-verbal cues like emojis shape group behaviour becomes increasingly relevant. The paper proposes that something as small as emoji use in a group chat can shift how much people identify with their group, and consequently how generously they behave towards fellow members. If you have covered in-group bias, prosocial behaviour, or CMC in your course, this builds directly on those foundations.
This research proposal hypothesises that when group members use emojis in a text-based group chat, other members feel a stronger sense of belonging to the group. That increased cohesion, in turn, makes them more generous when splitting money with the group. The study uses confederates (scripted fake participants) who either do or do not use emojis, then measures how much of a $20 bonus the real participant shares with the group.
Emoji
A small digital image or icon used to express an idea, emotion, or concept in electronic communication (Oxford English Dictionary, 2017). In simple terms, the little smiley faces and symbols you add to texts and chats to convey tone or feeling.
Group cohesion
The degree to which members of a group feel bonded to one another and motivated to remain part of the group. Think of it as the "glue" that holds a team together: the stronger it is, the more people identify with the group and want to contribute.
In-group bias (in-group favouritism)
The tendency to favour members of one's own group over outsiders. In simple terms, people are nicer, more generous, and more trusting towards those they see as "one of us."
Prosocial behaviour
Voluntary behaviour intended to benefit others, such as sharing, helping, or cooperating. In this study, generosity in a resource-allocation task serves as the proxy for prosocial behaviour.
Confederate
A person who appears to be a genuine participant in an experiment but is secretly working with the researcher and follows a script. Think of it as an actor planted in the study to create a controlled social environment.
Resource-allocation task
An experimental task in which a participant decides how to divide a resource (here, $20) between themselves and others. It measures generosity or fairness.
Independent variable (IV)
The factor the experimenter manipulates. In this study: whether the confederates use emojis in the group chat (two levels: emojis present vs. emojis absent).
Dependent variable (DV)
The outcome the experimenter measures. Here: how much of the $20 the participant allocates to the group.
Between-subjects design
An experimental design in which each participant experiences only one condition. Each person is in either the emoji group or the no-emoji group, never both.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC)
Any communication that occurs through electronic devices, including instant messaging, email, and social media. In simple terms, talking to people through screens rather than face to face.
Emojis communicate thoughts and emotions through a voiceless, toneless medium (Zareen, Karim & Khan, 2016)
People increasingly prefer messages with emojis over plain text
Emoji use is correlated with personality traits; emojis can both express and influence affect (Marengo, Giannotta & Settanni, 2017)
The absence of an expected emoji can cause negative affect, while their presence fosters positive affect (Zareen et al., 2016)
Gap in the literature: most research focuses on individual-level emoji effects; group-level consequences remain largely unexplored
Higher group cohesion and a stronger sense of belonging correlate with improved group performance (Zhang, Tan, Lu, Jin & Zhang, 2016)
Cohesion is not just about liking each other; it predicts how well the group functions as a unit
Increasing cohesion is therefore a practical lever for boosting team output, relevant to workplaces, project teams, and study groups alike
People are more generous towards those they perceive as in-group members (Duclos & Barash, 2014)
This pattern holds even in children: in resource-allocation tasks, kids share more with minimal-group members (Sparks, Schinkel & Moore, 2017)
The logic: if emojis strengthen in-group feeling, participants should share more money with their group
Participants: 600 NYU undergraduate psychology students recruited via the SONA system
Design: Between-subjects, two conditions
Emoji condition: confederates include emojis in group chat messages
No-emoji condition: confederates send identical text without emojis
Task: A 20-minute group decision-making task (marketing simulation) conducted via text-based group chat with an emoji keyboard available
The participant works alongside four confederates who follow a standardised script
The task outcome (money earned) increases by the same amount regardless of which option the group picks, so individual or group skill does not confound results
Confederates agree with the participant's suggestions and maintain equal contribution levels across conditions
Dependent measure: After the task, participants allocate $20 between themselves and the group. More money allocated to the group indicates greater generosity (and, by inference, greater group cohesion)
Secondary measure: The participant's own emoji use during the chat is counted
Participants in the emoji condition will allocate more of the $20 to the group than those in the no-emoji condition
Participants exposed to emoji-using confederates will themselves use more emojis
The participant's own emoji count will correlate positively with the amount allocated to the group
If confirmed, the findings would suggest that emojis in group messaging boost group cohesion and belonging, which in turn increases prosocial behaviour
Personality mediates the effect: people who use emojis more are more receptive to emoji-rich environments, so the cohesion boost may be stronger for them
Confound identified by the author: confederates are scripted to agree with the participant. A participant who contributes more receives more positive feedback, which could independently drive generosity
Suggested follow-up: reverse the ratio (one confederate, several real participants) so the confederate's emoji use prompts organic emoji adoption, allowing a more naturalistic test of group-level effects
Students often think the DV here is how many emojis the participant uses. It is not. The DV is the dollar amount allocated to the group. Emoji count is a secondary, correlational measure.
Students sometimes confuse "confederate" with "control group." A confederate is a scripted actor within the group, not a separate condition. Both conditions use confederates; the conditions differ in whether those confederates use emojis.
It is tempting to assume this is a within-subjects design because the same script is used across conditions. It is between-subjects: each participant experiences only one condition.
The paper labels the dependent variable as "IV" in the Materials section. This is an error in the original text. The dependent variable is the money allocation, and the independent variable is emoji usage by confederates.
⚠️ This study illustrates how a between-subjects design controls for order effects: each participant sees only one emoji condition, so there is no carry-over.
⚠️ The use of confederates is a classic social psychology technique (think Asch's conformity studies). Be ready to identify why confederates are used here: to standardise the social environment so the only systematic difference between conditions is emoji presence.
⚠️ Generosity as a behavioural proxy for group cohesion is an indirect measure. Exam questions may ask you to evaluate the validity of this operationalisation: does giving more money to the group really mean the person feels more cohesion, or could other factors (e.g., social desirability, mood) explain it?
⚠️ The confound the author identifies (more participant contributions = more positive confederate responses) is exactly the sort of internal-validity weakness examiners like to test. Be prepared to explain why it threatens causal inference and how it could be addressed.
True or False: The independent variable in this study is the amount of money the participant allocates to the group.
False. The IV is emoji usage by confederates. The money allocation is the DV.
Fill in the blank: The study uses a __________ design, meaning each participant is assigned to only one condition.
Between-subjects
True or False: The group's performance in the decision-making task varies depending on which option they choose.
False. The money shown increases by the same amount regardless of the option chosen.
Fill in the blank: The four other "group members" in each session are actually __________ following a standardised script.
Confederates
True or False: The author predicts that participants who personally use more emojis during the chat will allocate less money to the group.
False. The prediction is a positive correlation: more personal emoji use, more money allocated to the group.
Q: Why does this experiment use confederates rather than real group members in all positions?
A: Confederates follow a standardised script, which ensures that the only systematic difference between conditions is the presence or absence of emojis. With real group members, natural variation in communication style, contribution level, and personality would introduce confounds.
Q: Identify the independent variable, the dependent variable, and the type of experimental design used in this study.
A: The IV is emoji usage by confederates (two levels: emojis vs. no emojis). The DV is the dollar amount the participant allocates to the group out of $20. The design is between-subjects.
Q: The author claims that increased generosity towards the group indicates increased group cohesion. Evaluate the strength of this operationalisation.
A: It has ecological validity in that sharing resources is a real-world marker of group identification. However, it is an indirect measure: a participant might allocate more money due to social desirability, positive mood induced by the task, or a sense of fairness unrelated to cohesion. A stronger design might include a validated group-cohesion questionnaire alongside the behavioural measure.
Q: Describe the confounding variable the author identifies and explain how it could threaten the study's internal validity.
A: The confederates are scripted to agree with and positively respond to the participant. A participant who contributes more to the discussion receives more positive feedback. This additional positive interaction, rather than emoji use itself, could drive increased generosity. It threatens internal validity because the effect on the DV may be partly attributable to differential positive reinforcement rather than emoji exposure alone.
Q: How might the results differ if the study were conducted with a within-subjects design instead?
A: Each participant would experience both conditions, which introduces order effects and carry-over: having seen emojis in one round could change expectations and behaviour in the next. Counterbalancing could mitigate this, but the novelty of the emoji condition would be lost after first exposure, potentially weakening the effect.
This study connects to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner): the mechanism it proposes is that emojis strengthen in-group identification, which is the same psychological process behind minimal-group paradigm findings. If your course covers social identity, this paper is a digital-age application of those principles.
The resource-allocation task links directly to research on prosocial behaviour and the dictator game in behavioural economics. Understanding how context (here, communication style) shifts giving behaviour is a recurring theme across social and economic psychology.
The broader context is computer-mediated communication (CMC) and how non-verbal cues are lost or replaced online. This paper treats emojis as digital substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice, which ties into media richness theory and the cues-filtered-out approach to CMC.
emoji, emoticon, smiley, group cohesion, group dynamics, in-group bias, in-group favouritism, prosocial behaviour, generosity, resource allocation, dictator game, between-subjects design, confederate, scripted participant, computer-mediated communication, CMC, instant messaging, workplace communication, digital communication, nonverbal cues online, social identity, belonging, team performance, affect, positive affect, personality and emoji use, text-based communication, social psychology research methods, NYU, SONA system