The ubiquity of cell phones has opened doors for richer communication, and emojis play a key role in this evolution. Beyond their playful nature [1], emojis offer unique potential to deepen connections between individuals. Studies suggest that emojis can foster stronger friendships through personalized use [2] and even lead to more face-to-face interactions in budding romances [3]. Kelly and Watts [4] describe the value of emojis in relationships as keeping the connection lively. Further, these researchers describe the emoji as being "relationally valuable" because they provide "evidence of connectedness" between two individuals (p. 4). With this insight, this study explores how emojis can be leveraged to develop meaningful, lasting romantic partnerships, ultimately promoting a deeper emotional connection.

Stark and Crawford [1] describe emojis as “popular digital pictograms that can appear in text messages, emails, and on social media platforms” (p. 1). Since emojis are in pictogram form, they are comparable to Egyptian hieroglyphics. The Egyptian pictograms contained some 800 characters that interestingly underwent dialectical changes during the Middle and Late Egyptian periods [5,6]. The dialectical changes that occurred in the Egyptian language are like the evolution undergone by modern pictograms as they moved from typewriter art known as ASCII, then to the first emoticon messages sent by graduate students at Carnegie Mellon University, and lastly to the contemporary emoji in both static and animated format [7]. With modern technology, there are over 3,782 unique pictogram emoji symbols [8]. When viewing many of these modern emojis, some are fun and playful, and others are romantic and developed with human connection in mind.

When applied to gender, emoji use also offers more profound insight into the development of a relationship. Research indicates that based on one's gender, using face-based emojis may or may not be appropriate. In long-term relationships, like in more short-term relationships, women consistently express interest in "facial cues over bodily cues" [9,10] discovered that face-based emojis provide a greater sense of comfort to female emoji message recipients when they seek a long-term relationship. There is greater scrutiny for males when they send a message with an affectionate emoji face, and it is less appropriate than when a female sends an affectionate emoji face to a suitor [10].

A potential problem for resourcing emojis to develop deep romantic connections with others is that picture message meanings vary from culture to culture [11]. When used in a new culture or region, exploring the symbolic differences emojis makes some emoji messages confusing. Additionally, the variation in cell phone platforms also makes the emoji look slightly different compared to other cell phone platforms. Although the Unicode information is standardized, the way the emojis' graphical representation can look different on each

platform. This transference between technologies also occurs in social media when using emojis [12]. Therefore, the meaning of the emoji is more likely to be misconstrued based on cross-device emoji transmissions [13]. Moreover, there is no standardized dictionary of meanings associated with emojis that has yet to be published, other than Emojinet, a wiki-like resource where emoji meanings are thematically analyzed from multiple online sources.  Without standardization, the misuse of an emoji could occur, especially considering it is a language-based technology that has yet to be fully colonized with a completely unabridged dictionary of terms [14]. Again, when using emojis for romance purposes, misconstruing information could be a costly hindrance to a potential suitor.

To address the interpersonal context of this study, mediated by communication tools, we must define short-term and long-term relationships. In any short-term romantic relationship, the mate or mates are disinterested in maintaining emotional intimacy and need to maintain open communication with text messaging and other communication tools [15]. Contrastingly, in healthy long-term relationships, suitors have several stages where emoji use is appropriate. In the first stage, there is tremendous dependence on one another [16]. In this stage, couples are very romantic and passionate. In the second stage, there is greater independence. Then, finally, in the final and most mature stage of a long-term healthy relationship, there is a greater sense of interdependence. These stages are closely related to Sternberg's work and his triangle, which includes intimacy, passion, and commitment [16]. Like in the description of the stages of a long-term relationship and the Sternberg triangle, in a successful relationship, the sense of attachment between two individuals "predicts intimacy and commitment, which in turn predict greater relationship satisfaction" [17]. Here are some of the ways that emojis can contribute to an up-start long-term relationship:

• They can increase the mood of a message [18];
• They provide a space for non-verbal cues [19];
• The eggplant, tongue, and sweat droplet emojis can be resourced to cultivate sexual-based text message exchanges [20];
• Emojis can reinforce relationships because they provide a personalized history of the connection between people [4];
• Gesselman and Garcia [3] have identified that emoji use can lead to more in-person interactions between people in a dating situation because of the emotional expression expressed in emojis.

The framework in this study is the Hyperpersonal Model of Communication. In this model, the sender and receiver portray themselves in the best light possible emphasizing only the positive features of oneself [21]. Unlike in-person interactions when suitors use a Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) system such as sending text-messages it provides the suitors with the chance to edit what they are saying before saying it; thus, enhancing their self-preservation and enhancing their image. Also, in CMC communication, gender and physical ability are not a visible feature due to the asynchronous medium, therefore, senders can falsify these attributes to “optimize their self-presentation” (p. 504). With the anonymity provided in CMC communications, receivers can develop “idealized” and “hyperbolic” understandings of the people they are speaking within asynchronous formats [22].

The research instrument begins with an informed consent section highlighting the study's benefits. This section of the research instrument also addresses the study's relevance by stating that the information collected will provide a more advanced understanding of the value of emojis and how they can contribute to cultivating a non-platonic long-term relationship. The survey then includes some demographic questions that do not highlight sexuality or sexual preferences. These demographic questions only ask for the age of the survey participants and their undergraduate statuses. These demographic questions ask about what operating system (OS) the respondents use most frequently and how often they resource emojis weekly to a hardly ever Likert scale format. Then, the survey asks about emojis and their use in developing non-platonic long-term relationships. The first questions are on a Likert scale and address how emojis make one feel when sent and received by a "potential romantic partner." The following questions ask which emojis the participants have used with "a potential romantic partner." These questions offer specific emojis that include the (heart on the face with a smile),(heart eyes),(the wink and blown kiss),(the heart), (The I love you sign language hand), and the statement, "I have not sent any of these emojis to a potential romantic partner." A follow-up question also includes a list of more sexually explicit emojis developed in a similar format. These emojis include the(the eggplant),(the sweat droplets),(the tongue),(a bed),  (a kiss), and the statement, "I have not sent any of these emojis to a potential romantic partner." Finally, the research instrument offers three open-ended questions for the participants to further explain their understanding of using emojis when attempting to cultivate a non-platonic long-term relationship. These questions include, "In your opinion, how do emojis open up new lines of communication when pursuing a romantic partner?" "How do you use emojis to flirt with a potential romantic partner?" and a final question that asks the participants to include any additional comments about using emojis with a potential romantic partner.

Theme One: The Enhancement of Image

In the data, the first prevalent theme to emerge included “The Enhancement of Image”. This theme evolved into two sub-conditions, which include (a) emojis to present oneself as an enjoyable person and (b) the use of emojis to add depth to one's image. Comments that emphasized the first category include "they are fun and casual," they add "likability," and "I feel like they make conversations more lively, which causes positive communication." Other statements that highlighted this enhancement of image stated how emoji-use "makes the conversation more comfortable and friendly", "I use them to show when I am being playful and flirty", and they are used "in order to seem more fun and less awkward".

Several statements aligned with emojis to add depth to one's image. These statements included a "better understanding of feelings", emojis "show the tone of a message", and "they can cause a conversational shift to more sexually charged topics". The linguistic use of the emojis also enhances the depth of one's personality because they "are more flirtatious than just regular words" and "they allow you to express more emotion/feelings". With the depth expressed by participants, it was noted that the emoji provides the "expression of emotional tones" with a "flirtatious attitude."

Theme Two: The Self-Preservation of One's Image

In the data, the second prevalent theme was noted as the avoidance of direct personal interaction through technology. This theme was understood as the subject uses emojis because they are the zeitgeist or to maintain personal anonymity.

Some of the statements showcase the use of emojis to maintain personal anonymity and thereby limit intimate conversation through operationalizing visual language to conduct small talk. A statement aligned with this category includes the expectation that emojis offer a "more flirtatious than just regular words" format in conversation and make talking with a potential romantic partner "fun and casual." Although these seem like unique things to say about emoji use, the researcher presumes that these statements highlight attributes of mimicking others, which carry a biological purpose, and through imitating others, one can conceal one's identity and thereby maintain personal anonymity [23]. On this understanding that one can hide one's identity from others through the CMC interaction, one participant said that emojis make one "sound less boring and monotone." Another participant said they "typically do not" use emojis to flirt with a potential romantic partner. These direct statements highlighted the importance of self-preserving one's image when using CMC communication or popular linguistic cues that are copied from others.

This research aims to uncover the diverse ways in which emojis are utilized in the context of romantic relationships, shedding light on the intricacies of emoji use in this specific social setting. The analysis of the data revealed two prominent themes, each carrying significant implications for the understanding of emoji use in romantic relationships: The Enhancement of Image and The Self-Preservation of One's Image.

With the first theme of the enhancement of one's image, the data expressed in the open-ended responses showed that the participants have a keen understanding of how to use emojis to develop romantic relationships. Statements such as "too many emojis can turn a person away" explain that participants know how to use emojis formulaically. Participants also understood emoji use implies "a more elevated level of interest in a potential partner." The participants also noted that emojis are very direct and help others discern " that I like them more than a friend," they also "help the recipient see how I want something to be taken." This final statement aligned with research by Gesselman, Ta, and Garcia [3] that has found that sexually explicit emojis, such as eggplant and sweat droplets, are prominent sexual graphics that contribute to an increased likelihood of intimate behavior with a CMC connection.

On the aspect of enhancement of one's image, it was also noted in the data by one participant that "hearts and smiley faces" make one "seem nicer and more approachable."

The second theme of the self-preservation of one's image was less clearly visible in the data than the first theme. Yet, it was an important theme to consider due to its association with the Hyperpersonal Model of Communication framework utilized in this study. The direct statements related to this theme were inferred from the data. This is perhaps due to the research instrument not offering a question in this category. Nevertheless, some participants were very direct about their dislike of emojis. Some statements used in the data included "I typically do not," use emojis, and "I do not" use emojis to flirt with a potential romantic partner, highlighting the importance of the self-preservation of one's image. However, it is inferred that most of the participants may use emojis.  With their emoji use, they presumably use emojis to conduct friendly small talk between potential romantic partners – as one respondent said they flirt with potential romantic partners " like this:."  The respondent chunked together several visual characters to offer an understanding that emojis help with "small talk," and they mask a potential suitor's direct intentions with apparent flirtatious communication.

Figure 1: A Flowchart of the Process of Reducing the Findings in This Research.

Note. This graphic charts the decision tree process of breaking down the information into its categories.

This research opens doors for additional future explorations on the topic. One intriguing question is whether emojis with affectionate faces universally increase a suitor's perceived confidence, regardless of the recipient's gender or sexual orientation, when seeking a long-term relationship. A second question is: Could affectionate emojis make male suitors appear less desirable? These untested hypotheses delve into potential gender bias within emoji communication, an under-researched area. Furthermore, emojis can be combined to create new meanings. The deciphering of these novel combinations and their evolving cultural significance not only holds great promise for future studies but also brings a sense of excitement to this research. Additionally, while some might consider emojis "old" at a decade old, their history is sufficient for language-based adaptations and the formation of new associations. Investigating these innovative emoji uses presents a fresh avenue for future research, one largely absent from current literature.

Since the dawn of time, visual communication has served as a powerful tool for recording culture and fostering connection. From cave paintings to modern emojis, pictograms have transcended spoken languages to share stories, beliefs, and emotions. The ancient desire for connection, not just amusement, fuels this enduring practice. Emojis, our modern pictograms, continue this legacy. They offer a playful way to express ourselves, but more importantly, they bridge the gap between individuals, fostering a sense of shared experience and belonging. In a world increasingly disconnected and reliant on digital interaction, emojis stand as a testament to the enduring human need to use pictures to connect with others.

1. Stark L and Crawford K. The conservatism of emoji: Work, affect, and communication. Social Media + Society. 2015; 1.
2. Tigwell GW and Flatla DR. Oh that's what you meant: reducing emoji misunderstanding. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services adjunct. 2016; 859-866.
3. Gesselman AN, Ta VP and Garcia JR. Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PloS one. 2019; 14: e0221297.
4. Kelly R and Watts L. Characterising the inventive appropriation of emoji as relationally meaningful in mediated close personal relationships. 2015.
5. Domingo DJ, Herrera JP, Valero E and Cerrada C. Deciphering Egyptian Hieroglyphs: Towards a New Strategy for Navigation in Museums. Sensors. 2017; 17: 589.
6. Selden DL. Hieroglyphic Egyptian?: An Introduction to the Language and Literature of Middle Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2013.
7. Ruan L. Meaningful Signs—Emoticons. Theory and Practice in Language Studies.2011; 1: 91-94.
8. Emoji Counts. v15.1.
9. Confer JC, Perilloux C and Buss DM. More than just a pretty face: Men's priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2010; 31: 348-353.
10. Butterworth SE, Giuliano TA, WhiteJ, Cantu L and Fraser KC. Sender Gender Influences Emoji Interpretation in Text Messages. Frontiers in psychology. 2019; 10: 784.
11. Barbieri F, Kruszewski G, Ronzano F and Saggion H. How cosmopolitan are emojis? Exploring emojis usage and meaning over different languages with distributional semantics. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 2016; 531-535.
12. Guibon G, Ochs M and Bellot P. From emojis to sentiment analysis. 2016.
13. Hakami SA. The Importance of Understanding Emoji: An Investigative Study. Research Topics in HCI. 2017; 1-20.
14. Wijeratne S. A Framework to Understand Emoji Meaning: Similarity and Sense Disambiguation of Emoji using EmojiNet.2018.
15. Jonason PK and Buss DM. Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences. 2012; 52: 606-610.
16. Katz LS, Hale NS and Peak S. Warrior Renew?: Healing From Military Sexual Trauma. New York: Springer Publishing Company. 2015.
17. Madey SF and Rodgers L. The Effect of Attachment and Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love on Relationship Satisfaction. Individual Differences Research.2009; 7: 76-84.
18. Novak PK, Smailovic J, Sluban B and Mozetic I. Sentiment of emojis. 2015.
19. Hogenboom A, Bal D, Frasincar F, Bal M, de Jong F and  Kaymak U. Exploiting emoticons in sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 28th annual ACM symposium on applied computing. 2013; 703-710.
20. Thomson S, Kluftinger E and Wentland J. Are you fluent in sexual emoji?: Exploring the use of emoji in romantic and sexual contexts. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. 2018; 27: 226-234.  
21. Berger CR. Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 2014.
22. Walther JB Slovacek CL and Tidwell LC. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long term and short-term computer-mediated communication. Communication Research. 2001; 28: 105-134.
23. Morton S. Mimicry. In M. Ryan (Ed.), the encyclopedia of literary and cultural theory. Wiley. Credo 2011.