Judging emoji by occupation: A case of emoji-based sarcasm interpretation.

The smiling emoji has been claimed to be a marker of sarcastic intention among young Chinese users in computer-mediated communication. However, it is not well understood whether people interpret the emoji differently based on the characteristics or traits of the sender, as conveyed by occupation stereotypes. We investigated the effect of sender occupation on emoji-based sarcasm interpretation in both unambiguous (Experiment 1) and ambiguous (Experiment 2) contexts. The results showed that contextual incongruity was privileged over sender occupation in cueing sarcastic intention. In unambiguous contexts, sender occupation exerted no significant influence on the interpretation of emoji-based sarcastic statements. In contrast, sender occupation played an important role in the interpretation of emoji-based statements in ambiguous contexts. Specifically, emoji-based ambiguous statements delivered by senders in high­irony occupations were more likely to be perceived as sarcastic than by those in low-irony occupations. However, sender occupation did not affect the interpretation of the emoji; instead, it biased the judgment of emoji in sarcasm interpretation. In a follow-up experiment (Experiment 3), we investigated the perceived characteristics of both high- and low-irony occupations. The results demonstrated that individuals in high-irony occupations were stereotyped with characteristics, including being humorous, insincere, easy to setting up close relationships, and of a lower social status. Taken together, our study suggests that stereotypical information about the sender could drive the interpretation of potentially sarcastic statements, and the contextual information modulates the effect of sender occupation on sarcasm interpretation.

Foveal vision determines the perceived emotion of face ensembles.

People can extract summary statistical information from groups of similar objects, an ability called ensemble perception. However, not every object in a group is weighted equally. For example, in ensemble emotion perception, faces far from fixation were weighted less than faces close to fixation. Yet the contribution of foveal input in ensemble emotion perception is still unclear. In two experiments, groups of faces with varying emotions were presented for 100 ms at three different eccentricities (0°, 3°, 8°). Observers reported the perceived average emotion of the group. In two conditions, stimuli consisted of a central face flanked by eight faces (flankers) (central-present condition) and eight faces without the central face (central-absent condition). In the central-present condition, the emotion of the central face was either congruent or incongruent with that of the flankers. In Experiment 1, flanker emotions were uniform (identical flankers); in Experiment 2 they were varied. In both experiments, performance in the central-present condition was superior at 3° compared to 0° and 8°. At 0°, performance was superior in the central-absent (i.e., no foveal input) compared to the central-present condition. Poor performance in the central-present condition was driven by the incongruent condition where the foveal face strongly biased responses. At 3° and 8°, performance was comparable between central-present and central-absent conditions. Our results showed how foveal input determined the perceived emotion of face ensembles, suggesting that ensemble perception fails when salient target information is available in central vision.