This document summarizes a research study that examined how text messaging behavior differs based on relationships and gender. The study analyzed words, emoticons, abbreviations, and duration of messages sent between family, friends, and romantic partners. It found that females generally use more words and emoticons than males, especially with family and friends. Messages to friends contained more abbreviations than other relationships. Romantic partners had shorter message durations than other relationships. Relationship status also impacted behavior, with those in exclusive relationships using more words and abbreviations with friends.

1. A New Age of Communication: How
Different Relationships Influence Text
Messaging Behavior

2. As of 2014, 90% of people in the USA own a cell phone and
81% of their activity is attributed to text messaging.
18-29 = 98%
30-49 = 97%
60-54 = 88%
65+ = 74%
Its one of the few appliance that, when it goes missing, it has
an immediately impact on your life.
Cell Phones and Messaging
Have Taken Over Our Lives
(PEW Research Center, 2014)

3. So why is
text
messaging
so cool
bro?
C.A.P.
Control the transmission of
information
Arrange “face” to meet
presentational goals
Preserve aspects of
Personality, and disposition
New #
who dis?

4. It also allows recipients
to focus on
reciprocating the
emotions, or intentions
of the sender.

5. … And avoid social embarasment.

6. “
So what did I do for my study?

7. IV:
Sex
• Male
• Female
Relationship Type
• Family
• Friend
• Romantic interest
2x3 Mixed design
DV:
Words
Emotioncs
Abbreviations
Durations
N = 93
61F, 32M
Sona (n = 42)
21F, 21M
Online (n = 51)
40F, 11M
Age
18-23 (49.5%)
24-65+ (50.5%)

9. Table 1.
Mean Amounts for Words, Emoticons, Abbreviations, and Durations preferred by Males and
Females for Interaction Effects.
Males Females
_________________ __________________
Relationship Type M (SD) M (SD)
Family Relationship
Words 2.81 (.21) 3.28 (.15)*
Emoticons 1.43 (.23) 1.55 (.17)
Abbreviations 1.88 (.4) 2.71 (.28)*
Durations (minutes) 216.5 (66.6) 136.9 (48.2)
Friend Relationship
Words 2.75 (.26) 3.48 (.16)*
Emoticons 1.71 (.38) 2.63 (.28)*
Abbreviations 2.84 (.4) 2.96 (.26)
Durations (minutes) 130.9 (105.5)* 297.1 (76.4)
Romantic Relationship
Words 3.13 (.12) 3.31 (.14)
Emoticons 2.41 (.39) 2.45 (.28)
Abbreviations 2.5 (.4) 2.16 (.27)
Durations (minutes) 157.6 (69.7) 102.2 (50.5)
Females, Family, Friend, Words* F(1,91) = 5.635, p = .02, η2
= .058
Females, Family, Abbreviations* F(1,91) = 7.578, p = .007, η2
= .077
Females, Friend, Emoticon* F(1,91) = 7.78, p = .006, η2
= .079
Male, Friend, Duration* F(1,91) = 5.459, p = .022, η2
= .057
Table 2.
Mean Amounts for Words, Emoticons, Abbreviations, and Durations
preferred by Males and Females for Main Affects.
Words Emoticons Abbreviations Durations
IV M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Relationship
Type
Family 3.1(.13) 1.49(.14)* 2.29(.24) 176.74(41.1)
Friend 3.1(.13) 2.17(.23) 2.91(.22)* 214(65.12)
Romantic 3.21(.12) 2.43(.24) 2.33(.23) 129.92(41.1)
Sex
Male 2.89(.18) 1.85(.29) 2.41(.33) 168.35(67.1)
Female 3.35(.13)* 2.22(.21) 2.61(.24) 178.77(48.58)
Female, Words* F(1,91) = 4.176, p = .044, η2
= .044.
Friend, Abbreviations* F(1,91) = 18.864, p < .000, η2
= .172
Family, Emoticons* F(1,91) = 24.713, p < .000, η2
= .214.

10. Place your screenshot
here
iPhone project
Show and explain your web, app or
software projects using these gadget
templates.

11. Table 3.
Mean Amounts of Words, Emoticons, Abbreviations, and Durations
Self-Coded by Males and Females.
Words Emoticons Abbreviations Durations
IV M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Relationship
Type
Family 28.5 (5.6) 1.12 (.26) 1.74(.41) 535.24(171.01)
Friend 32.6(4.1) 1.41 (.4) 2.2 (.4) 282.34(97.94
Romantic 32.4(4.3) 2.24(.52) 2.7 (.758 80.848(27.3)*
Sex
Male 27.1(4.1) 1.2 (.3) 1.8 (.63) 362.22(91.42
Female 35.22(4.1) 2.03 (.5) 2.63 (.63) 236.73(93.67)
Relationship Type, Durations* F(1,39) = 6.895, p = .012, η2
= .15

12. Durations (In Hours)

13. Table 4.
Mean Amounts of Words, Emoticons, Abbreviations, and Durations Preferred by
Relationship Status.
Family Friend Romantic
Relationship Status M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Single/Dating
Words 2.93 (1.9) 2.8(.19) 3.23(.18)
Emoticons 1.28 (1.33) 2.18 (2.4) 2.5 (1.2)
Abbreviations 1.7(.15) 2.6 (.17) 2.3 (2.01)
Durations (minutes) 1.97.85(432.7) 143.55(379.34) 145.3(501.9)
Exclusive
Words 3.3 (.16) 3.5 (.17)* 3.3(.16)
Emoticons 1.7 (1.3) 2.4 (2.1) 2.4 (2.42)
Abbreviations 2.98 (2.43)* 3.17 (2.3) 2.3 (2.22)
Durations (minutes) 139.06 (329.6) 312.6 (716.9) 103.2(290.7)
Abbreviations, Family * F(1,91) = 8.431, p = .005, η2
= .085.
Words, Friends* F(1,91) = 5.712, p = .019, η2
= .059

14. # of Words
# of Emoticons
Words* F(1,40) = 8.084, p = .007, η2 = .168
Emoticons* F(1,40) = 7.889, p = .008, η2 = .165

15. Future Research

16. Thanks!

17. References
Angermuller, A., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (2014). The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis John.
Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins Publishing Company.
Derks D., Bos A. E. R., & Grumbkow J. K. (2008). Emoticons and online message interpretation. Social Science Computer Review,
26, 379-388.
Huang A. H., Yen D. C., & Zhang X. (2008). Exploring the potential effects of emoticons. Information Management, 45, 466-473.
Herring, S. C., & Zelenkauskaite, A. (2009). Symbolic capital in a virtual heterosexual market: Abbreviation and insertion in Italian
iTV SMS. Written Communication, 26, 5-31. DOI:10.1177/0741088308327911
Kato, Y., & Kato, S. (2015). Reply speed to mobile text messages among Japanese college students: When a quick reply is preferred
and a late reply is acceptable. Computers In Human Behavior, 44, 209-219.
Ling, R., (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Lo, S. K. (2008). The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 11, 595-597.
Oksman, V., & Turtiainen, J. (2004). Mobile communication as a social stage: Meanings of mobile communication in everyday life
among teenagers in Finland. New Media & Society, 6, 319–333. DOI:10.1177/1461444804042518
PEW Research & Internet Life Project (2014). Mobile technology fact sheet: Highlights of the Pew Internet Project’s research
related to mobile technology. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/
Reid, F., & Reid, D. (2010). The expressive and conversational affordances of mobile messaging. Behavior & Information
Technology, 29, 3-22.
Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation txt? The sociolinguistics of young people's text-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online.
http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/open/2002-003/thurlow2002003.html
Wolf, A. (2000). Emotional expression online: Gender differences in emoticon use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 827-833.