2. Problema de investigación
7.2 Factores que inciden en la preferencia de los anunciantes por un tipo de publicidad
In this section, I will share and analyze the results of the survey and interview portions of the research. Since the survey contained the largest sample size, its results will be treated as the strongest indicator of trends amongst participants. The interview portion is useful for providing insight into the reasoning behind various survey trends, and for discussing additional features of texting that were not addressed in the survey.
Participants
345 participants responded to the survey; however, 46 of these responses were removed from the data due to incompletion. Responses in which only half of the questions (or fewer) had been completed were considered “incomplete.” Of the remaining 299 participants, 170 reported that they learned English as a first language, 112 learned a language other than English, and 17 learned English and another language simultaneously. 71 respondents reported a language other than English as their dominant language, 195 reported English, 29 selected “English and another language are equal,” and 4 left the question blank.
212 respondents were female, 75 were male, 5 were nonbinary, 2 were agender, 2 were genderfluid, and 3 chose not to disclose their gender identities. 110 respondents were aged 18- 22, 125 were 23-30, 37 were 31-40, and 14 were 41-50, and 13 were 51 or older. For additional demographic information, see Appendix D.
25 post-survey interviews were successfully scheduled and took place over the course of a month. Of the participants in these interviews, 18 were female, 5 were male, and 2 were
genderfluid. 4 respondents were between the ages of 18 and 22, 19 were 23-30, 1 was 31-40, and 1 was 51 or older. As for first language, 14 reported English as their first language, 8 reported another language, and 3 reported both English and another language. In terms of dominant
28
language, 17 reported English, 7 reported another language, and 1 reported both English and another language.
General Findings
A one-way ANOVA was used to compare participants’ responses based on first language, dominant language, and age. These “group types” were treated as the independent variable, and the rating of various punctuation marks was treated as the dependent variable. In addition to comparing the responses of the group types, each punctuation mark was compared in terms of its overall rating (across all language groups, ages, and genders). As shown in Table 2, there were statistically significant differences between the ratings each punctuation mark received.
ANOVA Table for Punctuation vs Rating
df Sum sq Mean sq F p
5 3570 713.9 162 <2e-16
Table 2: ANOVA table displaying the degrees of freedom, sum sq, mean sq, F value, and p value for the independent variable Punctuation and the dependent variable Rating
As indicated in Table 3, across all language groups, age groups, and genders, exclamation points were rated highest and ellipses were rated lowest. Periods received the second-lowest mean rating, although it was still above the halfway point of 5. This suggests that participants interpreted exclamation points as more sincere, polite, and interested than the other forms of punctuation; ellipses on the other hand were seen as insincere, rude, and disinterested.
Punctuation Median Rating
Mean Rating Standard Error of Mean
Standard Deviation
Exclamation Point 8 8.36 0.108 1.43
Comma 7 7.03 0.257 1.97
Table 3: Results of the Likert scale portion of the survey across all first languages, dominant languages, genders, and age groups.
29 Punctuation Median
Rating
Mean Rating Standard Error of Mean Standard Deviation Question Mark 7 6.97 0.09 2.07 None 7 6.63 0.07 2.05 Period 6 6.13 0.1 2.12 Ellipses 4 4.27 0.11 2.4 Table 3 (cont.)
The open-ended survey questions allowed participants to describe the sample text conversations more freely. After coding the responses into 26 categories, ANOVA analyses were used to find statistically significant differences in the usage of various descriptors. The coding scheme for how each descriptor was categorized is presented in Table 4.
Category All descriptors included in category Example Neutral Neutral, normal, okay, fine, no tone, medium-
polite, typical, monotone, mutual, average, moderate, acceptable, fair
Not upset nor happy just neutral
Upset Upset, disappointed, unhappy, angry, dissatisfied, perturbed, not happy, let down, depressed, sad, mad
Unhappy/frustrated. The three dots make it seem like she is not happy about the text the recipient has sent. Forgiving Empathetic, understanding, forgiving,
comforting, reassuring, sympathetic, reassuring, doesn't want recipient to feel guilty, sensitive to others, accepting, unphased, calming, okay with it, dismiss need for apology, soft, tolerant, magnanimous, receptive
Friendly and understanding. The exclamation point at the end of no big deal makes me think that they weren't upset about the person being late. Concerned Concerned, worried, anxious, frantic, panicked,
urgent, preoccupied, scared, nervous, cautioning
Quin seems worried. There are lots of concerned questions and the ellipses makes me think there's some concern.
Rushed Rushed, in a hurry, brief, late, quick text A little rushed. She only uses one word.
Unconcerned Unconcerned, not bothered, uninterested, indifferent, uncaring, dismissive, nonchalant, apathetic, bored, bland, flippant, unenthused, doesn't care, doesn't want to help, not excited
Marco doesn't care about seeing or meeting up with the person texting.
30
Category All descriptors included in category Example Direct Direct, flat, matter-of-fact, concise,
straightforward, informative, simple, factual, firm, to the point, explanatory, monotone, frank, concise, efficient, straight up, bland, succinct, confirmatory, practical, functional, plain, comprehensive
she is straightforward , doesn't drag things
Apologetic Apologetic, guilty, sorry, uncomfortable for inconveniencing, hoping for forgiveness, remorseful, regretful, rueful
I think Marco is guilty and sorry for running late because of the multiple updates and checking to see if it’s okay
Interested Interested, receptive, thought about response, waiting for response, focused, took time, curious, intrigued, wondering, wanting to know
Calebs look polite and interested in why your friend was calling.
Informal Casual, chill, informal, conversational, laid- back, comfortable, easy going, natural
Casual and chill (informal), the use of the word "nah."
Annoyed Annoyed, sharp, frustrated, irritable, exasperated, irritated, aggravated, "text equivalent of rolling her eyes", agitated, bothered, salty, resentful
He seems sort of irritated to me. He left out the word “my” before phone. He seems like he does not want to be texting.
Impatient Impatient Impatient, because he just
replied one word. Rude Rude, cold, dry, curt, standoffish, impolite,
short, unwelcoming, distant, blunt, hostile, mean, attitude, terse, not so/very polite, too brief, clipped, rough, insensate, bad, cold but formal, harsh, unfriendly, condescending, assertive, aggressive, passive aggressive, sarcastic
The period seems to make janae more blunt, or perhaps clipped in tone
Sheepish Sheepish, self-conscious, tentative, reserved, unsure, reluctant, hesitant, reluctant
Tentative. The ellipsis and the many questions make him sound unsure.
Polite Polite, nice, pleasant, kind, formal, considerate, courteous, distant, respectful, gentle, ingratiating
Caleb is being polite and formal by explaining the reason he didn't pick up the call and writing in correct grammar. Friendly Friendly, comfortable, open, close/good
relationship, familiar
It seems they have good relationship.
Calm Calm, relaxed, care free, not stressing, mellow, relieved
Relaxed. He is not worried about the time the other person arrives. Sincere Sincere, earnest, candid, genuine, true,
honest
Apologetic. He is sincere. He gave an explanation.
31
Category All descriptors included in category Example Lying Making excuses, avoiding, insincere, lying,
not sorry, fake, shady, flakey, forced, story, too much, weird, don't trust him, not truthful, ingenuine, strange
The punctuation and wording sound bit irritated and like he is making excuses for not wanting to talk to the other person. Distracted Distracted, busy (driving, in class),
preoccupied, staying off the phone, active, no time to waste
she might be busy in class already
Positive Positive, good, perfect She seems positive; definitely not rude
Happy Happy, chipper, excited, perky, enthusiastic, glad, upbeat, optimistic, energetic
Polite and enthusiastic because of the exclamation marks
Caring Caring, catering, accommodating (put with forgiving), doesn't want to be a trouble, eager, compliant, thoughtful, helpful
Quin may be very caring about the recipient's situation by the multiple questions Quin asks and the "you alright?" at the end. Apologetic Apologetic, guilty, sorry, uncomfortable for
inconveniencing, hoping for forgiveness, remorseful, regretful, rueful, humble
They feel guilty because they are late.
Not sure (texter)
Unsure, ambivalent, skeptical, tentative, confused, uncertain, doesn't believe sender, doubt
Skeptical, the ellipsis insinuates that she wants to continue the conversation, get a better explanation.
Not sure (respondent)
I’m not sure, hard/difficult to judge, not enough information, don't understand, offhand
Difficult to judge without context or intonation
Other Demanding, unapologetic, resigned, old, has more to say, fussy, acquaintances, inconvenienced, awkward, over friendly, conceded, safe, confident, off-putting, tired, embarrassed, young, final, certain, decisive, reasonable, businesslike, robotic, appreciative, hopeful, uncomfortable, patient, funny, questionable, alert, descriptive, parental, negative, ungrateful
Polite and tries to lighten the mood by being funny.
Table 4 (cont.)
As shown in Table 4, many participant responses contained multiple descriptors. For instance, the “sincere” example response also uses “apologetic” as a descriptor. All descriptors used by a respondent were counted once. If a respondent used two descriptors that fell under the same category (e.g. “Casual and chill (informal), the use of the word ‘nah’” uses three words that
32
were categorized as “informal”), that descriptor was only counted once. An ANOVA was used to compare how frequently the different descriptor categories were used for each sample text.
Across all language groups, ages, and genders, the use of some descriptors for certain text variations differed significantly. For instance, Mariah 2 (Figure 5), who used ellipses was viewed by the average participant as more annoyed, upset, and unsure, while Mariah 1 (Figure 4), who used no punctuation at all, was viewed as more distracted, rushed, and neutral. Overall, the results from this portion of the survey indicate that participants view periods and ellipses as upset or, in the case of ellipses, as an expression of uncertainty. Although a lack of punctuation rarely received as many negative descriptors, it was very frequently interpreted as “distracted” or “rushed.” More information about the open-ended survey questions can be found in the specific findings sections below.
33 Figure 4: Mariah 1, who did not use punctuation, was seen as more distracted, rushed, and neutral.
Figure 5: Mariah 2, who used ellipses, was seen as more annoyed, upset, and unsure.
After accounting for SD and SEM, significant differences were found in how often native speakers, L2 English learners, and bilinguals used the following descriptors: neutral, direct, annoyed, rude, polite, friendly, relaxed, positive, and apologetic.
34
Figure 6: Percentages of respondents who used various descriptors on any open-ended survey item
For the descriptors showed a significant difference between language groups, additional analyses were run to investigate the root of the differences between L1 groups. By keeping the sample texter consistent, statistically significant differences were found for the descriptors polite, rude, positive, relaxed, and apologetic. For instance, sample texter Janae 2 (Figure 7) was viewed as rude by more L2 learners (M = 36.36%, SD = .48) than native speakers (M = 12.16%, SD = .33). No significant differences were found for neutral, direct, annoyed, and friendly when the sample texter remained consistent. This suggests that, although L2 learners used the word “neutral” and “friendly” more overall while NSs used “annoyed” and “direct” more, these instances were spread out over a variety of text samples, rather than concentrated on one or two.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Percentage of Respondents Who Used Descriptor
35
Figure 7: Janae 2, whose text was described as “rude” by more L2 learners than native speakers, in spite of the period
When analyzing the interview responses, I looked for themes regarding how participants interpreted each punctuation mark. The questions for each interview were drawn from both the Likert scale portion and the open-ended portion of the survey. Because there was often overlap in the interview responses regarding either section of the survey, this section of the results will be subdivided according to which punctuation mark is being discussed. The remainder of this results section will be subdivided according to which punctuation mark is being discussed. Ellipses
36
As shown in Table 2 above, ellipses received the lowest rating across all language groups. Table 5 below indicates that participants used more negative descriptors for ellipses on the open-ended survey portion. For instance, Lucas 1 (Figure 8) was seen as more annoyed, upset, and unsure but less forgiving, friendly, and happy. Mariah 2 (Figure 5) was viewed by the average participant as more annoyed, upset, and unsure, while Mariah 1 (Figure 4) was viewed as more distracted, rushed, and neutral.
% of respondents who used descriptor when punctuation was used Text
Sample
Descriptor Comma Ellipses None Period
Marco Reluctant - 8.33 - 0.962 Lucas Annoyed 3.57 24.53 5.56 1.75 Forgiving 53.57 26.42 53.70 50.88 Friendly 14.29 9.43 1.85 15.79 Unsure 0 7.55 0 0 Upset 0 13.21 0 0 Happy 10.72 1.89 7.41 10.53 Mariah Annoyed - 28.97 13.04 - Neutral - 12.15 29.57 - Rushed - 9.35 13.04 - Unsure - 6.54 0 - Distracted - 0.935 8.70 - Upset - 28.97 4.35 -
Table 5: Sample text conversations that received statistically significant differences in descriptors between ellipses and another punctuation mark
37 Figure 8: Lucas 1, who used ellipses, was seen as more annoyed, upset, and unsure.
Figure 9: Lucas 2, who used a comma, was seen as more forgiving, friendly, and happy. Although native speakers and L2 learners alike reported a negative association with ellipses overall, there were statistically significant differences between the ways native and non- native speakers rated ellipses, as shown in Table 6. This suggests that native English speakers view ellipses as more rude and disinterested, while L2 English learners may have a more forgiving interpretation.
38
First Language Median Rating Mean Rating Standard Error of Mean
Standard Deviation
English 4 3.94 0.126 2.24
Another Lang. 5 5.03 0.213 2.58
Table 6: Results of the Likert scale portion of the survey for native English speakers compared to L2 English learners, regarding interpretation of ellipses
There was also a significant difference between the ratings for ellipses amongst participants who reported English as their dominant language in comparison to another dominant language, as demonstrated in Table 7. Participants who reported English as their dominant language seemed to view ellipses more negatively, while those who reported another language had a significantly more positive interpretation.
Dominant Language
Median Rating Mean Rating Standard Error of Mean
Standard Deviation
English 4 3.86 0.282 2.25
Another Lang. 5 5.53 0.273 2.64
Table 7: Results of the Likert scale portion of the survey for dominant English speakers compared to non-English dominant participants, regarding interpretation of ellipses
In addition to first and dominant language, age also had an influence on how participants interpreted ellipses, as shown in Table 8. Statistically significant differences were found between the group aged 18-22 and all groups aged 31 or older, and between the group aged 23-30 and all groups aged 31 or older. It is clear that, on average, participants older than 30 had a more neutral or even positive view of ellipses, while younger participants almost always reported a negative interpretation. This was the only statistically significant difference found regarding age.
39
Age Median Rating Mean Rating Standard Error of Mean Standard Deviation 18-22 3 3.70 0.324 2.02 23-30 4 4.10 0.164 2.35 31-40 5 5.53 0.405 2.66 41-50 6 6.14 0.489 2.29 51 or older 6 6.13 0.472 2.26
Table 8: Results of the Likert scale portion of the survey for 5 different age groups, regarding interpretation of ellipses.
In the interview portion, native English speakers described ellipses as “ambiguous,” “uncertain,” “dissatisfied,” “annoyed,” and “passive aggressive.” Of the 5 NS respondents who discussed ellipses, 3 (60%) described how ellipses indicate tone for them. Though this concept is hard to transcribe into text, perhaps the most apt description came from Tabitha, who said, “When I use ellipses […] my tone of voice is like ‘yikes’. I wouldn’t use it unless […] I’m giving someone the side-eye.” In other words, Tabitha (along with other participants) seems to view ellipses as a way to indicate a displeased tone of voice via text.
Although no interview questions explicitly indicated age, three (younger) native speakers also mentioned that older texters tend to use ellipses more. Lucy, for instance, noted that,
“people who are a little bit older, maybe forties and older, they’ll use ellipses instead of a period or [no punctuation]. It gives the impression that […] they’re disappointed or what they’re saying is sarcastic or not sincere.” Again, a negative view of ellipses is seen amongst young, native speaker participants.
Of the 3 L2 English learners who discussed ellipses, 2 (67%) also displayed a negative interpretation of ellipses, describing them as “hesitant” and “not the most direct.” When asked to explain why Jeremy 1 (Figure 10) doesn’t really want to come by the recipient’s house, Cemre (L1 Turkish) said, “there’s […] three full stops, as if he’s not really into it.” This negative and uncertain connotation very closely resembles what native speaker participants reported. Unlike
40
the native speakers, however, no L2 learners suggested that ellipses indicate annoyance, sarcasm, passive-aggression, or a generally dissatisfied tone. It is clear that both groups view ellipses somewhat negatively, but the connection between ellipses and intonation varies between groups.
Figure 10: Jeremy 1, whose ellipses indicated “he’s not really into it” to Cemre Exclamation Points
Across all ages, genders, and language backgrounds, exclamation points received the most positive rating. A number of interview responses supported the finding that exclamation points are interpreted more positively across all age groups, first/dominant languages, and genders. 9 native speaker participants discussed exclamation points, and all 9 used positive descriptors, such as “nice,” “interested,” “excited,” or “enthusiastic.” The only negative
41
positive descriptor. This respondent (Casey, L1 English) suggested that using multiple
exclamation points intensifies whatever emotion is already being implied by the texter’s word choice and emoji usage. She exemplified this by saying that more exclamation points “[come] across as like more excited” but also indicated, “if I’m really upset about something, I’ll use more exclamation marks.” Therefore, exclamation points can still potentially have a negative connotation for her. This general, intensifying feature of exclamation points was mentioned by 4 out of 9 native speakers who discussed exclamation points (44%). These participants felt that exclamation points help strengthen the emotional and intonational features of the text. Though many L2 English learners indicated a similar positive interpretation of exclamation points, only one (Michelle, who reported dominance in both French and English) discussed the usage of exclamation points to indicate tone or emotion.
One L2 English learner (Camila, L1 Spanish) out of four who discussed exclamation points (25%) mentioned on her survey response that an “exclamation point may reveal a bit of annoyance.” When prompted to explain this, she reported that “exclamation points [… are] the same as when you use upper case” and “for me, that sounds like the person is like yelling.” This negative interpretation of exclamation points, however, was an outlier amongst L2 learner respondents and respondents in general.
Many interviewees were asked to explain why the interpreted a certain text as
disinterested, insincere, or rude and what they would do to make the text sound more interested, sincere, or polite. Additionally, some interviewees gave suggestions to the sample texters without being prompted. 4 out of 14 native speakers (29%), 3 out of 8 L2 learners (38%), and 2 out of 3 bilinguals (67%) suggested that the texter shown in the survey add an exclamation point to their text in order to make it sound more positive. A notable response was a piece of advice
42
given to imaginary texter AJ (Figure 11), who used no punctuation, as shown in Figure 4. Brian suggested that AJ add an exclamation point here, explaining that “exclamation points are like the universal sign for like ‘I’m not offended by what you’re saying.’”
Figure 11: Texter AJ 2, who interviewee Brian recommended include an exclamation point after “Yeah I can do that” to sound more interested.
Periods
As shown in Table 3, periods were the second-lowest rated punctuation mark across all language groups, ages, and genders. Similarly, Table 9 below indicates that many participants interpreted a text as more annoyed if it contained a period. However, as shown in Table 10, this negative association with periods was not as strong for L2 learners.
43
% of respondents who used descriptor when punctuation was used Text